APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The issue on this appeal is the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. The trial court, applying the principles promulgated in Taylor v. Butler, 142 S.W.3d 277 (Tenn. 1996), held that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it requires the plaintiff to submit to arbitration virtually all of his claims, while allowing the defendants access to a judicial forum for some of their potential claims. We agree with the trial court that the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor is controlling and that Taylor mandates a holding that theagreement is unconscionable and unenforceable. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant, Henry Bates, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery, burglary of a building, and vandalism of $1,000 or more. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of forty-two years. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that both issues are without merit. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a medical malpractice action arising from the death of Decedent.  Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1).  The trial court agreed and dismissed the action without prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to this court, and we vacated the dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that section 29-26-121 did not mandate dismissal for noncompliance with its terms.  Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2013-00266-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5773431, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013).  Defendants filed an application for permission to appeal our decision.  The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the application for purposes of remanding the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Stevens v. Hickman Community Health Care, Inc., – S.W.3d –, 2013 WL 6158000 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).  Upon our reconsideration, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Madison County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Joseph Shane Powell, charging him with promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged in the indictment. The trial court imposed a sentence of eight years as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Auqeith Lashawn Byner, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school with the intent to sell or deliver and one count of reckless driving. After a jury trial, he was convicted as charged. As a result, he was sentenced to a sixteen-year sentence for the possession of cocaine with intent to sell conviction and six months for reckless driving, to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the sentence in another case 2007-D-3157. Petitioner initiated a direct appeal of his convictions but dismissed the appeal voluntarily. Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. After a review, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Plaintiffs appeal a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to the Tennessee Right to Farm Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-101 et seq. (“the TRFA”). Plaintiffs own an express ingress/egress easement, a gravel road, that passes through Defendants’ farm. In what Plaintiffs titled a “COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DAMAGES”, they alleged, inter alia, that Defendants substantially destroyed the utility of their ingress/egress easement by driving heavy farming equipment across and allowing cattle to walk upon the easement. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. Defendants filed a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss contending that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted because the nuisance claim was barred by the TRFA. More specifically, Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants violated any “generally accepted agricultural practices” or a “statute or regulation” in the use or operation of the farm upon which the easement lies. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs appeal. We have determined that the TRFA pertains to nuisances alleged to arise from a farm or farm operations but not to claims of unreasonable interference with the use of an ingress and egress easement. We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim, for the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted for a nuisance arising from a farm or farm operation. However, we have determined the complaint states a separate claim for impairment of and damage to Plaintiffs’ ingress and egress easement, a claim that is not subject to the TRFA. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint for it states a separate and viable claim for impairment of and damage to Plaintiffs’ ingress/egress easement. Further, this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellee, Donald Lee Reburn, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. At his guilty plea submission hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a persistent offender to ten years, suspended to probation. The State has appealed and argues that the trial court erred by sentencing appellee without a sentencing hearing and without a presentence report. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a sentencing hearing.

J.B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her rights to her minor children, J.B. Jr. and J.B. (“the Children”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) was involved with the family going back to 2006. In 2009, the Children were taken into emergency, protective custody predicated on allegations of illegal drug use, failure to protect from sexual abuse, and domestic violence. The Children were adjudicated dependent and neglected and placed in foster care. A year later, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. It alleged that Mother abandoned the Children and that she failed to resolve the issues that led to their removal. Following a bench trial, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the best interest of the Children. On this appeal, Mother challenges only the best interest determination. We affirm.

This appeal stems from a case of alleged nursing home abuse and neglect and involves a dispute as to whether a health care power of attorney executed by decedent was effective to authorize the agent to execute an optional arbitration agreement on the decedent’s behalf. The trial court denied the nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the attorney-in-fact did not have authority to sign the optional arbitration agreement on the principal’s behalf. The nursing home appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

The petitioner, Joseph Lamont Johnson, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of felony evading arrest. The trial court then reduced one of the aggravated robbery convictions to aggravated assault pursuant to State v. Franklin, 130 S.W.3d 789, 798 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) and sentenced the petitioner to an aggregate sentence of fifty-four years. The petitioner’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Johnson, No. M2007-01644-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2567729, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2009). The petitioner brings this post-conviction action alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in that: (1) trial counsel failed to convey a plea offer or inform the petitioner regarding his potential exposure; (2) trial counsel did not adequately investigate the case; (3) trial counsel performed deficiently by not moving to dismiss one of the aggravated robbery counts; (4) trial counsel performed deficiently by not moving to suppress a witness’s identification of the petitioner; (5) appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge the petitioner’s sentencing range; and (6) that the cumulative errors above resulted in the deprivation of the right to counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to prove one or both prongs of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to each claim, and we accordingly affirm the denial of the petition.

This is a divorce appeal. Husband appeals the classification, valuation, and division of certain items in the marital estate, the award of alimony in futuro, and the requirement that he pay a portion an expert witness fee. We vacate the classification and valuation of the furniture which is at issue, vacate the valuation of the stock and the 401(k), and remand those matters for further consideration. We affirm the court’s decision to award alimony, but vacate the award of alimony in futuro and remand for further consideration of the type, amount and duration of the award. We affirm the court’s ruling in all other respects.

This appeal involves review of an administrative decision. Chattanooga‟s local utility company hired the Appellant construction company to perform preliminary work on the  utility company‟s fiber-optic internet infrastructure.  One of the Appellant‟s employees  was  injured  while  performing  this  work.  The  Tennessee  Department  of Labor  and  Workforce  Development‟s Division  of Occupational  Safety and Health  (“TOSHA”) conducted  an investigation  of the  incident. Thereafter,  on  recommendation  of the inspector, TOSHA cited the Appellant for violations of the telecommunications safety regulations.  Appellant contested the citations before the Division of Occupational Safety and  Health Review  Commission (“the  Commission”),  which  upheld the  citations. Appellant then appealed the Commission‟s decision to the Davidson County Chancery Court, which also affirmed the citations.  Appellant now appeals the Chancery Court‟s  decision  to this  Court.  We conclude that  TOSHA  erred  in  applying  the telecommunications regulation instead of the construction regulations.  Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and vacate the citations issued to Appellant construction company.

Defendant, Derrick Braxton, was convicted as charged for one count of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to ten years’ confinement to be served at 100 percent release eligibility. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence and asserts the following: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; 2) his sentence is excessive; 3) the trial court failed to act as thirteenth juror; and 4) the prosecutor’s comments about Defendant’s credibility during closing argument were improper. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Dexter Deshun Coleman, pled guilty to three counts of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping and one count each of especially aggravated burglary and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery. The plea agreement provided that the Defendant would receive an effective sentence of twelve years as a Range I, standard offender with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for alternative sentencing and ordered that the Defendant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for alternative sentencing. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s judgments pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a slip and fall case under the GTLA. The plaintiff high school student slipped on a patch of ice on the sidewalk at his public high school and sustained injuries. The student filed this action against the county board of education alleging negligence. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the defendant school board had constructive notice of the ice on the sidewalk and thus was liable under the GTLA. The school board now appeals. After carefully reviewing the record, we find insufficient evidence in the record to support the finding of constructive notice and so reverse the trial court’s decision.

State trooper challenges his termination for the good of the service. We find substantial and material evidence to support the decision of the Civil Service Commission and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Yogonda Corley, was charged with five counts of aggravated sexual battery, with three counts being against the victim T.S. and two counts against the victim M.M., and seven counts of rape of a child, with three counts being against T.S. and four counts being against M.M. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of rape of a child, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was ordered to serve a total effective sentence of 75 years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, Defendant asserts that it was plain error for the trial court: 1) to admit into evidence a recording and transcript of statements by Defendant obtained by the use of a body wire worn by the mother of one of the victims; 2) to admit into evidence Defendant’s statements to the police following his arrest; 3) to admit into evidence the opinion testimony by a nurse practitioner that the victims’ statements were consistent with their medical examinations; and 4) not to sever the offenses against the two victims. Defendant asserts that the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to a reversal of his convictions. Lastly, Defendant categorizes another section of his brief as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, but then acknowledges that he chooses not to argue the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. With regard to the evidentiary issues, we conclude that the Defendant has waived consideration of the issues by his failure to contemporaneously object at trial. Also, Defendant failed to request severance of the charges as to each victim pre-trial. Because the alleged evidentiary issues and severance issue do not rise to the level of plain error, we decline review. We further conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority pertaining to the Defendant’s failure to demonstrate plain error relief on the evidentiary issues in this case. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s waiver of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, I write separately because the record provides ample evidence supporting each of the convictions in this case.

The trial court ordered a sixty-eight year old army veteran to be involuntarily hospitalized because it found that he suffered from a mental illness that rendered him “unable to avoid severe impairment or injury from specific risks.” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 33-6-501. The only evidence of actual risk, however, was that others might easily be able to take financial advantage of his confusion or his trusting nature. We reverse the trial court and order the defendant’s release, because it is not constitutionally or statutorily permissible to deprive an individual of liberty when he poses no danger to others, and when the only danger he poses to himself is danger to his own property or potential for financial loss.

The Keenans and the Fodors are neighbors who share access to their respective properties through an elaborate stone and metal gate that had been constructed on an easement of way over the Keenans’ property by the prior owner of the Fodors’ property.  After a period of relative harmony, a dispute over the ownership of the gate led to a  lawsuit.  The trial court and this court ruled that the gate was personalty, not a fixture, and belonged to the Fodors, who were given authority to move it.  The trial court’s order also set out some ground rules for the shared use of the gate pending its removal.  Disagreements over the gate continued, resulting in two additional legal actions.  The first was a motion for civil contempt filed by the Fodors alleging that the Keenans had violated the judicially-ordered ground rules for the use of the gate.  For their part, the Keenans filed a motion to compel the Fodors to remove the gate from the easement and place it on their own property.  In one proceeding, the court found that the Keenans were in contempt of its orders.  In the other, it declined to order that the gate be removed.  We reverse the finding of contempt, but we affirm the trial court’s determination that the Fodors are not obligated to remove the gate.  We also hold, however, that the Fodors are not entitled to exclude the Keenans from the free use of their own property by keeping the gate locked.

Kristine Blankenship (“Plaintiff”) sued Anesthesiology Consultants Exchange, P.C. (“Defendant”) alleging, in part, that as a result of Defendant’s failure to properly treat a surgical patient Plaintiff suffered injuries including “a severe and disabling injury to her back.” Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendant summary judgment after finding that Plaintiff had failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 by filing her complaint less than 60 days after sending the notice letter. Plaintiff appeals to this Court raising issues regarding whether Defendant waived the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 conflicts with Rule 18.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure as applied to this case. We hold, as did the Trial Court, that Defendant did not waive the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, and that Plaintiff waived her second issue by not raising it in the Trial Court. We affirm.

Register of Deeds filed petition pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-20-101 et seq. seeking an increase in compensation for her three deputy clerks and seeking an award of her costs, including attorney’s fees. The trial court denied Register the relief she sought, and she appealed. Based on the evidence presented and the language of the statute, we hold the trial court was required to determine the appropriate salary for Register’s assistants. Register is entitled under the applicable statute to have her costs, including her attorney’s fees, paid out of the fees collected by her office.

The Keenans and the Fodors are neighbors who share access to their respective properties through an elaborate stone and metal gate that had been constructed on an easement of way over the Keenans’ property by the prior owner of the Fodors’ property.  After a period of relative harmony, a dispute over the ownership of the gate led to a  lawsuit.  The trial court and this court ruled that the gate was personalty, not a fixture, and belonged to the Fodors, who were given authority to move it.  The trial court’s order also set out some ground rules for the shared use of the gate pending its removal.  Disagreements over the gate continued, resulting in two additional legal actions.  The first was a motion for civil contempt filed by the Fodors alleging that the Keenans had violated the judicially-ordered ground rules for the use of the gate.  For their part, the Keenans filed a motion to compel the Fodors to remove the gate from the easement and place it on their own property.  In one proceeding, the court found that the Keenans were in contempt of its orders.  In the other, it declined to order that the gate be removed.  We reverse the finding of contempt, but we affirm the trial court’s determination that the Fodors are not obligated to remove the gate.  We also hold, however, that the Fodors are not entitled to exclude the Keenans from the free use of their own property by keeping the gate locked.

In this post-divorce case, Rita Grace Tidwell Hickman (“wife”) appeals the trial court’s reduction of her transitional alimony and its refusal to grant her attorney’s fees, expenses and discretionary costs. The trial court granted the petition of Bobby Spencer Hickman (“husband”) to reduce alimony based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(g)(2)(C) (2010), which allows a suspension of transitional alimony when the recipient lives with a third person and the recipient fails to rebut the statutory presumption that the third person is either contributing to, or receiving contribution from, the alimony recipient, and, therefore, the alimony recipient does not need the amount of alimony previously awarded. The third person was the parties’ son, Ethan, who had turned eighteen shortly before husband filed his petition. Wife continued to allow Ethan to live with her, and provided food and other necessities to him, after he turned eighteen. We hold that wife rebutted the statutory presumption by showing that her financial situation had not significantly changed, and actually had deteriorated, since the award of transitional alimony. Wife demonstrated a continuing need for alimony notwithstanding her willingness to allow her son to continue living with her and to support him after his eighteenth birthday. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for the court to determine wife’s fees and expenses at the trial court level and her discretionary costs.

Jack E. Miller, a former City Manager of Crossville, filed this defamation action against Councilman Boyd Wyatt, based on Wyatt’s statement during a City Council meeting that Miller had been “discharged from City Manager up here because of misappropriating funds and not following procedures.” Wyatt moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that he was protected by legislative privilege under the common law and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201(b)(2) (2012), which statute provides that “[a]ll members of boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, and other governing bodies of any governmental entity . . . shall be immune from suit arising from the conduct of the affairs of such board, commission, agency, authority, or other governing body.” The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that Wyatt had immunity under § 29-20-201(b) because the alleged defamatory statement arose “from the conduct of the affairs of” the Crossville City Council. We agree with the trial court that Wyatt’s statement was made in the course of conducting the affairs of the City Council and, therefore, was protected by legislative privilege. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.