APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Appellant, Mark L. Ward, was convicted by a Knox County jury of aggravated
kidnapping, attempted aggravated burglary, and two counts of aggravated rape, for which
he received an effective sentence of sixty-eight years in confinement. The sole issue
presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the Appellant’s
convictions. Upon our review, we affirm.

This case arises from a dispute between a property owner and his homeowners’ association. The property owner, Pratik Pandharipande, purchased a home in a vacation community on a Tennessee lake, intending to use it as a short-term rental. At the time of the purchase, the property was subject to covenants requiring that the home be used for “residential and no other purposes.” The covenants were amended several years later to allow leases with minimum lease terms of thirty days. Pandharipande contends that neither the original covenants nor the amendments prohibit him from leasing his property for short terms of two to twenty-eight days. His homeowners’ association disagrees on both scores. We agree with Pandharipande that the original covenants requiring residential use of the property do not bar his short-term rentals, but we agree with the homeowners’ association that the amendments do. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners’ association based on both the original covenants and the amendments. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We affirm the Court of Appeals in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Micah Joshua Ford, alias Joseph Tolbert, III, appeals the denial of his postconviction
petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received
the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. He also argues that he is
entitled to a new trial under the doctrine of cumulative error. Following our review of the
entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
court.

In 2019, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Victor Wise, of two counts of
aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and two counts of
aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to forty-four years of incarceration. The
Petitioner appealed his convictions to this court, and we affirmed the convictions but
concluded that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. This court modified
the Petitioner’s total effective sentence to twelve years. State v. Wise, No. W2018-01343-
CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 4492910, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2019), no perm. app.
filed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that
he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied
after a hearing. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This appeal arises from a health care liability action filed in circuit court by a conservator
on behalf of a ward. After a three-week jury trial resulted in a mistrial, the conservator
took a nonsuit. The conservator refiled the complaint against only one defendant hospital,
asserting that it was vicariously liable for the actions of a doctor based on a theory of
apparent agency. The defendant hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis that
the conservator had entered into a consent agreement agreeing not to sue the doctor in the
refiled suit if the doctor agreed to withdraw his motion for discretionary costs. According
to the defendant hospital, this agreement releasing the alleged agent from liability
extinguished the conservator’s right to pursue a vicarious liability claim against the
principal. In response, the conservator took the position that the consent agreement was
not binding because it was never approved by the probate court that appointed her. The
circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendant hospital, finding that the order
appointing the conservator authorized her to dispose of property, execute instruments, enter
into contracts, pursue legal causes of action, and manage money, thereby authorizing her
to enter into the consent agreement. The circuit court found nothing in the order of
appointment, the relevant statutes, or caselaw that would impose a mandatory requirement
for approval of the settlement by the probate court. Because the conservator had released
the alleged agent from liability, the circuit court found that the conservator could not pursue
vicarious liability claims against the defendant hospital. The conservator filed a motion to
alter or amend, asking the circuit court to consider an “Advisory Opinion” of the probate
court on the matter. The circuit court denied the motion, explaining that it respectfully
disagreed with the Advisory Opinion of the probate court. The conservator appeals. We
affirm and remand for further proceedings.

In this breach of implied warranty of good workmanship and materials case, the trial court awarded Appellee $77,494.36 in damages. Although the parties agree that the proper measure of damages is the cost to repair the defects, the parties dispute the method of repair and its cost. In determining Appellee’s damages, the trial court relied on testimony from Appellee’s expert contractor. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s order. The parties’ respective requests for appellate attorney’s fees are denied.

This appeal arises from a petition filed by a beneficiary of a trust seeking an accounting and removal of the trustee. The trustee asserted the affirmative defense that the beneficiary violated the no-contest clause in the settlor’s trust. The trustee served the beneficiary with requests for admissions, to which the beneficiary responded with objections to the majority of the requests. After the trial court granted his motion for the requests for admissions to be admitted, the trustee filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on the no-contest clauses in the trust and will of the settlor. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the beneficiary’s petition with prejudice. The beneficiary appealed. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Alain Benitez, appeals the Smith County Criminal Court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing for his two convictions of first degree felony murder. Upon review, we conclude that we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I concur in the result reached by the Court and in its analysis in all but one respect.  In considering whether the father of Preston H., Christopher W. (“Father”), established an affirmative defense to the claim that he abandoned his child by failure to support, the Court reasons that it is unnecessary to determine “whether willfulness [of Father’s failure to support] presents a question of law, fact, or a mixed question of fact and law.”  In my view, the outcome of the appeal depends on that determination.

Petitioner, Kimberly Miller, appeals as of right from the Maury County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, wherein she challenged her convictions for first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder, for which she received a life sentence.  On appeal, Petitioner asserts that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to permit Petitioner “to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision on whether to assert—or not assert—the statute of limitations for all lesser[-]included offenses of first degree murder and first degree felony murder” and counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss, “along with alternative requests for mandatory or permissive jury instructions, related to the violation of [Petitioner’s] Due Process rights under the federal and state constitutions” based upon a lengthy, pre-indictment delay.  Following a thorough review, we affirm. 

The defendant, James Tyler Fucci, appeals the denial of his request for judicial diversion of the six-year sentence imposed for his Montgomery County Criminal Court guiltypleaded conviction of aggravated assault. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We remand for entry of a judgment on Count 2 reflecting that the charge was dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant, Christopher A. Williams, while on parole under a sentence from the Sullivan
County Criminal Court, was convicted in federal court for conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base. The State filed a
detainer based on Defendant's violation of parole. Defendant filed a pro se "Motion to
Terminate Parole as Unsatisfactorily Completed/Alternatively Revoke Parole and Impose
Sentence in Absentia to Run Concurrent with Federal Supervise Release," which the trial
court denied, finding that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD") "does not apply
to probation violations." Defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider, asserting that he
was denied a due process hearing on his parole revocation. The trial court denied the
motion, and Defendant appeals. We dismiss Defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Courts in both Florida and Ohio denied petitions to terminate Father’s parental rights in favor of the Prospective Adoptive Parents.  While Florida courts were still exercising jurisdiction over the transition of the child from his Prospective Adoptive Parents to his Mother and Father, the Prospective Adoptive Parents sought for the third time to have a court terminate Father’s parental rights, asserting willful failure to support in Tennessee.  The juvenile court dismissed the petition, finding that Father’s failure to support was not willful because the failure to support was tied to the Prospective Adoptive Parents’ representations that they would no longer pursue custody, to Father’s financial outlays related to preparing his home for a transition of custody, and to the complex, multi-jurisdictional nature of the litigation, in which Florida courts were expressly exercising jurisdiction for many months after the filing of the Tennessee petition and during the entirety of the period of non-payment.  The Prospective Adoptive Parents appeal, asserting that the ground for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the child’s best interest, and that the court erred in assessing fees for the guardian ad litem.  We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Appellant, Markettus L. Patrick, of aggravated
assault by strangulation or attempted strangulation, a Class C felony, see Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iv), for which he received a sentence of five years to be served on
supervised probation following service of 150 days in confinement. The sole issue
presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted the Appellant of aggravated assault for which she
received a four-year sentence to be served on supervised probation after service of eleven
months and twenty-nine days at 75% release eligibility. The sole issue presented for our
review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the serious bodily injury element of
aggravated assault and self-defense. Upon our review, we affirm.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court denied the husband’s petition for contempt upon
finding that the wife had satisfied a provision of the parties’ marital dissolution
agreement allowing for the husband to retrieve items of personal property from a home
awarded to the wife. The court initially awarded attorney’s fees to the wife, pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), for her successful defense against the petition.
Upon the husband’s motion to alter or amend and following a hearing and supplemental
briefing, the trial court concluded that the statute did not provide for attorney’s fees in an
action involving enforcement of the distribution of property in a divorce. The trial court
granted the husband’s motion to alter or amend, denying the wife’s request for attorney’s
fees. The wife has appealed. Upon consideration, we hold that Tennessee Code
Annotated § 36-5-103(c) provides for attorney’s fees solely in matters involving alimony,
child support, permanent parenting plan provisions, and custody of children. We
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This case involves an accident between a motor vehicle and a school bus that occurred on
Highway 11E on a foggy December morning in Jefferson County, Tennessee. The
automobile was traveling eastbound on Highway 11E when it struck the bus, which was
stopped across the two eastbound lanes of Highway 11E positioned to make a left turn onto
the westbound lanes. The driver of the car, Jacob Cook, sustained serious injuries as a
result of the impact. Mr. Cook, together with his grandfather, Rickey Macari, who owned
the vehicle, brought an action in tort seeking damages against Jefferson County, the
Jefferson County Board of Education, and the driver of the school bus, Harold Moody. In
their complaint, Mr. Cook and Mr. Macari alleged that Mr. Moody's negligence in stopping
the school bus across the eastbound lanes was the proximate cause of Mr. Cook's injuries.
The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that Mr. Cook's negligence, and not Mr.
Moody's, was the proximate cause of the accident because Mr. Cook had been speeding
when the accident occurred. During a bench trial, the defendants' expert witness, an
accident reconstructionist, opined that Mr. Cook had been speeding at the time of the
accident but that Mr. Cook's car would have collided with the stopped school bus even had
he been following the speed limit. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found
that Mr. Cook was indeed speeding at the time of the accident, but that Mr. Moody should
not have attempted to turn left across the eastbound lanes given the traffic and weather
conditions. Accordingly, the trial court determined that Mr. Moody's actions were the
proximate cause of Mr. Cook's injuries and allocated 80% of the fault for the accident to
Mr. Moody, with 20% of the fault assigned to Mr. Cook. The defendants timely appealed.
Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment with one modification:
we direct the trial court to dismiss Jefferson County as a defendant because the Jefferson
County Board of Education, as the owner of the school bus, is undisputedly the proper
defendant in this action.

This appeal arises from a health care liability action following the death of Ashley Denson
from a cardiac event she suffered after being treated and released from Methodist Medical
Center. Ms. Denson was unmarried and had two minor children at the time of her death.
The statutorily-required pre-suit notice listed Ms. Denson’s mother, Bobbie J. Denson, as
the claimant authorizing notice. The minor children were not identified anywhere in the
notice. The subsequent complaint was filed by “ASHLEY DENSON, Deceased, by and
through her Next Friend and Mother BOBBIE JO DENSON, and BOBBIE JO DENSON,
Individually.” The body of the complaint lists, for the first time, Ashley Denson’s children,
and states that Bobbie Denson “brings this action individually, and on behalf of Plaintiff,
decedent’s surviving minor children … as Grandmother and Legal Guardian.” The
defendants filed motions to dismiss, challenging Bobbie Denson’s standing to bring the
action and contending that the pre-suit notice failed to comply with the requirements of the
Tennessee Health Care Liability Act.1

I agree with the majority’s secondary conclusion that Grandmother held standing to
file suit on behalf of the minor children. I write separately to address the majority’s
dispositive holding that failure to identify the minor children in the pre-suit notice defeats
this cause of action, thereby precluding their claim for health care liability for judicial
review on its merits.

This is a divorce case. Husband appeals the trial court’s valuation and division of marital property and its award of attorney’s fees as alimony in solido to Wife. We affirm the trial court’s valuation and division of marital property. We vacate the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to wife as alimony in solido based on the lack of findings in the trial court’s order. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. The case is remanded for findings on the issue of whether an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate under the factors prescribed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121 and, if so, whether the amount of attorney’s fees is reasonable.

The Petitioner, William Heath, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated
robbery, aggravated assault,1 and reckless endangerment, for which he is serving an
effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred
in “failing to view the cumulative effect of [his] claims as a constructive denial of the right
to counsel.” We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Paul Jerome Johnson, Jr., appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition,
arguing that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his claim of alleged bias by the
trial court and in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial.
Following our review of the entire record, oral arguments, and the briefs of the parties, we
affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a post-divorce petition for contempt. Because we conclude that the trial court’s order failed to resolve all the issues before the court, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

A Decatur County Jury found Dustin Len Lovelace, Defendant, guilty of facilitation of
aggravated robbery. Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the
judgment.