APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal concerns a suit brought by a homeowner’s association to enforce a property
restriction contained in its declarations against a resident subject to the declarations. After
the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the homeowner’s association, the
trial court granted it relief and entered an injunction against the homeowner. The
homeowner appealed. We conclude that the trial court properly granted the homeowner’s
association’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Appellants Matthew Swilley ("Swilley") and Samuel Barr ("Barr") entered into two agreements to purchase mobile home parks from William Thomas ("Thomas"). The buyers had not secured financing in order to close on the originally agreed upon closing date. The seller granted the buyers a number of extensions of the closing date; however, the buyers were ultimately unable to obtain financing in time to close by any of the dates demanded by the seller. As a result, the seller rescinded the agreements and shortly thereafter sold the properties to unrelated third parties for a higher price than provided for in the agreements with Swilley and Barr. Swilley, Barr, and their purported assignee, SB Capital LLC ("SB Capital" or, together with Swilley and Barr,"Plaintiffs"), brought suit against the seller for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment as to the proper disbursement of the earnest monies held in escrow. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the seller on Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, finding that Plaintiffs were the first to materially breach the agreements. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Giles County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert James Houston, of aggravated assault and simple assault, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of ten years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Maury County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Denny Kentra Reynolds, of possession of 26 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, possession of one-half ounce to 10 pounds of marijuana with the intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective 12-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the length of his sentence. Upon review, we affirm.

The defendant, Steven Ray Crockett, appeals his Rutherford County Circuit Court jury conviction of aggravated robbery. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by imposing a 12-year sentence, by ordering the sentence to run consecutively to his prior felony conviction from Virginia, and by accrediting only a portion of his pretrial time served in incarceration. Because the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing was superfluous and because it failed to properly accredit the defendant’s pretrial jail credits, we reverse and remand for entry of a corrected judgment on these issues. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

This is the second appeal concerning the trial court’s distribution of the divorcing parties’ marital property.  Following a prior appeal, this matter was remanded to the trial court to, inter alia, value and equitably divide the assets and debts contained in the parties’ marital estate.  The trial court appointed a special master to complete these tasks.  At the beginning of the special master’s hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement concerning the values of certain marital properties, including their associated debts.  Upon the conclusion of the special master’s hearing, the parties stipulated to the special master’s findings.  The trial court subsequently conducted an additional hearing and entered its own findings, which it relied upon to formulate an equitable division of the marital estate pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-121(c).  The husband has appealed the trial court’s division of the marital estate, arguing that the court’s mathematical and other errors rendered the division of the marital estate inequitable.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified herein.  We decline to award attorney’s fees to the wife on appeal.

Defendant, Danny R. Weld-Ebanks, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s revocation of judicial diversion.  He argues that the trial court relied on unnoticed grounds and abused its discretion in revoking his diversion.  The State concedes on both issues.  We agree that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Defendant’s diversion and therefore vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new revocation hearing.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal

This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of
Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Gibson County (“the
Trial Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Kristie C. (“Mother”), Jose O.
(“Father”), Jose H., and Giovani C. to the minor children D.V., G.V., J.C., H.V., K.O.,
A.V., C.O., and R.V. (“the Children,” collectively). After a hearing, the Trial Court
entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Children based
on the ground of severe child abuse. The Trial Court found further that termination of
Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Mother and Father
appeal. While conceding the ground of severe child abuse, they argue that the Trial Court
erred in its best interest analysis, which they say was inadequate. We find, as did the Trial
Court, that the ground of severe child abuse was proven against Mother and Father by clear
and convincing evidence. In addition, we find that the Trial Court’s findings of fact were
sufficient to underpin its best interest analysis, and that the evidence is clear and convincing
that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest.
We affirm.

The Petitioner, Brandon Vandenburg, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for four counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of unlawful photography of the victim. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) lead counsel’s failure to have a witness qualified as an expert psychiatrist at trial, (2) lead counsel’s failure to introduce prior bad act evidence regarding the Petitioner’s codefendants at trial, and (3) lead counsel’s failure to have the Petitioner’s voicemail to Mr. Quinzio admitted as an exhibit at trial. The Petitioner also raises freestanding post-conviction claims, arguing that the trial court violated the Petitioner’s protection against double jeopardy by (1) allowing him to be retried on amended charges after jeopardy had attached and (2) allowing the State to proceed with a superseding indictment without disposing of the original indictment. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Terrance Reese,[1] Petitioner, appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief, in which he alleged that he received an illegal sentence, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that one of his convictions was void.  The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition because the judgments were valid on their face and the trial court had jurisdiction over the offenses.  Petitioner appeals the dismissal of the petition.  We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Chancery Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court") found in this divorce action that Michael Bryant Sexton ("Husband") was the sole owner of Furious Properties, LLC and that he had purchased two Knox County real properties and deeded thern to Furious Properties, LLC. The Trial Court accordingly found that the entire interest in Furious Properties, LLC constituted marital property subject to equitable division and awarded
the two Knox County properties to Louise Ann Sexton ("Wife"). The Trial Court ordered Husband or a representative of Furious Properties, LLC to convey the entire interest in the Knox County properties by quitclaim deed to Wife within thirty days of the entry of the judgment. Husband's issues relate primarily to the property division. To the extent the Trial Court awarded property of a non-party LLC to Wife, we reverse and remand for the Trial Court to clarify its award, while acknowledging that the Trial Court may have intended to award Husband's interest in Furious Properties, LLC, rather than the LLC's properties themselves, to Wife. We further modify the Trial Court's judgment to reflect that the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce on stipulated grounds and to remove language granting the parties a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. We affirm the balance of the judgment. We deny Wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal.

The Petitioner, Billy Taylor, IV, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief challenging his guilty-pleaded convictions for two counts
of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and one count of possession of
methamphetamine over one-half gram with the intent to sell. The Petitioner argues that
the post-conviction court erred by finding that he entered his guilty pleas knowingly and
voluntarily. Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective by
failing to explain that the plea agreement did not guarantee the Petitioner probation and
treatment at a substance abuse program and (2) he was under the influence of narcotics at
the time he pleaded guilty. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B,
filed by the ward’s son, Paul Milem, seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. Having
reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Mr. Milem, and finding no error, we
affirm.

This appeal arises from a will contest. The circuit court entered summary judgment
upholding the will, finding no genuine issue of material fact existed as to its validity. The
contestant appeals. We affirm and remand to the probate court for further probate
proceedings.

The Petitioner, Mickey Edwards, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief for his jury trial convictions for four counts of aggravated burglary, four counts of
theft of property, identity theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card, for which he is serving
an effective sixty-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court
erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to trial
counsel’s lack of objections to instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. He also
alleges a free-standing claim that he was denied a fair trial due to the alleged prosecutorial
misconduct. We affirm.

The Defendant, Eric Bledsoe, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of
aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and felony theft, for which he is serving an effective
sixty-five-year sentence. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court summarily dismissed for
the failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in
denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a divorce action in which the trial court awarded the wife a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, divided the marital estate and awarded the wife, inter alia, child support as well as transitional alimony of $2,000 per month for four years, followed by $1,500 per month for two years, then $1,000 per month for two years, and $500 per month for two years. The court also awarded the wife alimony in solido of $50,000 as necessary spousal support and an additional $75,000 to defray the cost of most of her attorney’s fees. The husband appeals. We have determined that the record contains an inconsistency concerning the amount of the work-related childcare expenses the husband is required to pay, and it appears that the trial court failed to consider the husband’s obligation to pay work-related childcare costs in setting transitional alimony at $2,000 per month during the first four years, which additional expense appears to impair the husband’s ability to pay that amount. Accordingly, we vacate the award of child support and that portion of the transitional alimony award and remand these issues for reconsideration, taking into account, inter alia, the allocation of childcare expenses, the wife’s need, and the husband’s ability to pay. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. Both parties seek to recover the attorney’s fees and costs each incurred in this appeal. Exercising our discretion, we deny both requests.

The mother of a high school student involved in an altercation with the opposing basketball
team’s coach appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the coach and the
county board of education. Because the video footage of the altercation is open to more
than one interpretation, a genuine dispute of material fact remains as to the intention behind
the coach’s contact with the student and summary judgment is reversed as to the state law
assault and battery claims against the coach. The grant of summary judgment as to the
remaining claims against both the coach and the board is affirmed.

Attorney Russell E. Edwards seeks review of the trial court’s order granting his motion to be relieved as counsel for Sergio Bermudez, the defendant in the underlying case, and prohibiting Attorney Edwards from practicing in the Criminal Court for Sumner County. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering Attorney Edwards be barred from practicing law in the Criminal Court for Sumner County. We therefore issue a writ of certiorari and order that the trial court’s order prohibiting Attorney Edwards from practicing in the Sumner County Criminal Court is vacated.

The Claims Commissioner dismissed the claimant’s claim due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from an order granting, among other discovery sanctions, a default judgment against Husband in a divorce proceeding. Husband questions whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering sanctions against him. Because the trial court did not engage in the necessary analysis regarding its reasoning for granting the discovery sanctions, we vacate the sanctions order, as well as the subsequent orders that followed, including the order granting the parties’ divorce. This disposition pretermits inquiry into issues Husband has raised on appeal with respect to trial court determinations that followed the sanctions. Moreover, as to a remaining matter raised by Husband on appeal, we conclude that the issue is waived due to Husband’s failure to comply with applicable briefing requirements.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

The Petitioner, Craig Markeem Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus, arguing that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily dismissing the
petition without an evidentiary hearing or the appointment of counsel. Based on our
review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

Petitioner, Roger Terrell, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner contends he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.