APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion.  Indeed, I join in the majority opinion on all but one issue.  I write separately to address the issue of the trial court’s admission of the prior bad act of the Defendant’s exposing himself to Pamela through the back window of a truck “a few days earlier.”  The majority holds that it was error, albeit harmless, for the trial court to admit this evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Rules of Evidence.  The majority concludes that this evidence was only marginally relevant, and, therefore, the risk of unfair prejudice to the Defendant outweighed the relevance of the evidence.  The majority emphasizes that the Defendant also was on trial for indecent exposure.

This multi-faceted business dispute, which arises in principal part from the real estate collapse of 2008, involves five limited liability companies, eight individuals who are either members or officers of the respective companies, 530 acres of undeveloped real estate, and $7 million of secured notes that were personally guaranteed by six of the individuals. Over the course of two years, SunTrust Bank, the holder of the notes, agreed to extensions of the original maturity date; a final extension was granted until August 7, 2008. A call for capital contributions was approved but it produced insufficient funds to payoff the debt.Thereafter, two of the individuals, one of whom was the president of Rock Creek, and both of whom personally guaranteed a portion of the debt, formed another entity which then acquired the notes from the bank. Rock Creek Development, LLC (“Rock Creek”), which owned the real estate, then agreed to sell a substantial portion of its property to pay off the balance owing on the notes. In an attempt to stop the sale, Rock Ivy Holding, LLC (“Rock Ivy”), one of three members of Rock Creek, filed this derivative action for itself and on behalf of Rock Creek against Rock Creek’s members: RC Properties, LLC; Linked, LLC; two officers of Rock Creek; and several individuals who were members of the defendant companies. The complaint alleged, inter alia, various conflicts of interests by the individual defendants and various breaches of statutory and contractual duties by members and/or officers. Pursuant to an agreed order, the sale proceeded, the net proceeds were held in the registry of the court, and the remaining claims went to trial. After eights days of a bench trial, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02 at the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief.The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. Thereafter, several defendants filed various motions to recover their respective attorneys’ fees and expenses. Some of the motions were based on Tenn.Code Ann.§ 48-249804, which pertains to derivative actions, and others were based on indemnification provisions in Rock Creek’s Operating Agreement. The trial court granted some of the fee requests and denied others. In this appeal, Rock Ivychallenges the dismissal of its claims and the assessment of attorneys’ fees.Two individual defendants appeal the denial of their claims for attorneys’ fees. The holder of the notes appeals the denial of its claim for “default interest” and penalties. We affirm the trial court in all respects except for the trial court denying the claim for default interest on the notes. We have concluded that the holder of the notes is entitled to recover default interest from the time the notes were declared to be in default. Accordingly, this issue is remanded for further proceedings.

This administrative appeal arises from the termination of a state trooperfrom his employment with the Tennessee Department of Safety for filing a meritless sexual harassment claim against a fellow employee. Finding substantial and material evidence in support of the decision to terminate the trooper, we affirm.

Petitioner, Anthony Clinton, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a career offender to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, he filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. Appealing from the post-conviction court’s order, petitioner pursues the following claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (a) failure to file a motion to suppress his identification; (b) failure to file a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his person; and (c) failure to obtain copies of the store surveillance tapes and the 9-1-1 recordings. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se petitioner, Terry V. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Circuit Court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his 2005 conviction for sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine is void because the trial court failed to award pretrial jail credit. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court.

Mother challenges the termination of her parental rights for failure to support. We find no need to address this issue because mother did not appeal the trial court’s findings of several other grounds for termination. Mother also disputes the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court.
 

This is a will contest. The alleged will was signed by three witnesses. At the hearing on the will contest, two of the three witnesses and a notary public testified about the signatures on the purported will. The trial court held that the document was the decedent’s validly executed will and admitted it to probate. On appeal, the contestant of the will argues that the will proponent failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of proof from all living witnesses, if to be found, because the third witness to the will did not appear or testify. We hold that the proponent of the purported will was required to either submit the testimony of all living witnesses or show that a living witness whose testimony was not proffered was not to be found. However, because the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the availability of the third witness, as required under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, we must vacate the trial court’s decision and remand.

This case involves issues of breach of contract and negligence. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the Defendant/Appellee manufacturer. Because the trial court’s order does not contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to satisfy the requirements of Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for the entry of an order with appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

After taking a non-suit, Bobby J. Byrge, individually and as next of kin for the decedent Julia Kay Byrge, and the Estate of Julia Kay Byrge (“Plaintiff”) filed a second healthcare liability suit against Parkwest Medical Center (“Parkwest”) and Dr. John C. Showalter, M.D.1 Parkwest filed a motion to dismiss, and after a hearing, the Trial Court granted Parkwest’s motion finding and holding that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals to this Court asserting that his suit was not barred as he was entitled to rely upon Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105, the saving statute. We affirm finding and holding, as did the Trial Court, that Plaintiff’s first suit was not timely filed because Plaintiff did not comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, and, therefore, Plaintiff could not rely upon Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 to save his second suit.

The Defendant, Wesley M. Gifford, Jr., was convicted by a jury of attempted aggravated burglary, telephone harassment, and indecent exposure.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent terms of three years and six months for the attempted aggravated burglary conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the telephone harassment conviction.  This effective sentence was also to run consecutively to his prior sentences.  In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when a witness testified that the Defendant previously had been in jail; (2) the trial court erred in allowing admission of evidence of the Defendant’s prior bad act; (3) the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the issue of alibi; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (5) cumulative errors entitle him to a new trial.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is the second appeal in an ongoing custody dispute. Mother was initially designated primary residential parent of the child. Later, Father filed a petition alleging Mother was interfering with his parenting time and trying to turn the child against him. Mother then alleged Father was abusing their child, which allegations were determined to be unfounded. During that litigation, Father successfully demonstrated a material change in circumstances and became the primary residential parent; following that award, Mother filed the first appeal and this court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The present appeal arises from Father’s petition requesting a modification of the parenting plan and to, inter alia, suspend Mother’s parenting time; subsequently,Mother filed her counter-petition requesting, inter alia, change of custody, along with renewed allegations that Father was physically and sexually abusing their child.The trial court dismissed Mother’s counter-petition and granted in part and denied in part Father’s petition. Mother appeals contending the trial court erred in dismissing her counter-petition; she also contends the trial court erred in excluding rebuttal testimony from her expert witnesses. Father appeals contending the award of attorney’s fees and expenses was inadequate; he also contends this appeal is frivolous and that he should be awarded damages. We affirm the trial court in all aspects and, although we do not find Mother’s appeal frivolous, we find Father is entitled to recover, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), his reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal because this action involves custody of the parties’ child.

Appellant, Tawana Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape and abuse of an adult. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-502(a)(3), 71-6-117. The trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years and two years, respectively, to be served consecutively. On appeal, appellant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her rape conviction regarding whether the victim was mentally defective and, if so, whether appellant knew the victim was mentally defective; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting appellant’s abuse of an adult conviction; (3) the trial court’s use of specific enhancement factors during sentencing; and (4) the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm appellant’s rape conviction and, as the State concedes must be done, reverse and remand appellant’s abuse of an adult conviction for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The plaintiff filed a health care liability action against the defendant. During the pendency of her action, the General Assembly enacted the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and -122. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her original action. The plaintiff then filed two successive actions. First, the plaintiff filed a second action that did not comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith statutes. The plaintiff then filed a third action that complied with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and -122. The plaintiff moved to consolidate her second and third actions, and the defendant moved to dismiss. The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s second action should be dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements and that her third action should be dismissed based on the doctrine of prior suit pending. The trial court consolidated the lawsuits and denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss. The defendant moved for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court denied. We granted the defendant’s application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her second action. As a result of the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal and our recent holding in Rajvongs v. Wright, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2013 WL 6504425 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013), we hold that the plaintiff, who properly provided pre-suit notice of her claim prior to filing her third action, was entitled to a 120-day extension in which to refile her complaint pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c). The plaintiff’s third complaint was therefore timely filed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed an action against his employer alleging discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant employer on the basis that the action was barred by the contractual limitations period contained in the employment agreement executed by the parties. We affirm.

The Defendant, Teresa Turner, pled guilty to reckless homicide, a Class D felony.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a standard offender to three years with six months of the sentence to be served in confinement and the remainder of the sentence on supervised probation.  The Defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion when it: (1) denied judicial diversion; (2) misapplied enhancement factors; and (3) ordered a sentence involving split confinement.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Brian Marshall Keys, of one count of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and two counts of selling less than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school.  The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of fifteen years.  On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his constitutional challenge to the Drug-Free School Zone Act and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.  After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Mateem Hudson, of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-three years in confinement to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence about his other bad acts and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Anna Lois Long (“petitioner”) obtained an ex parte order of protection against Sammy Lee Brown (“respondent”), the man with whom she had lived for approximately 27 years. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a mutual order of protection for a period of one year. Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court erred in making the order of protection mutual and that the order was unlawful because it did not comport with the requirements of the governing statutory scheme, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-601 et seq. (2010). We hold that the trial court erred when it made the order of protection mutual in view of the fact the respondent did not seek an order of protection. The order should be modified so as to be directed only against respondent. We further hold that the trial court’s order should also be modified to include “the statement of the maximum penalty that may be imposed pursuant to § 36-3-610 for violating [the] order” as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-606(c). We conclude that the court’s order in all other respects satisfies the statutory requirements governing an order of protection. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

Appellant, Ashley Aaron Selke, pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary and received a two-year sentence for each count, to be served concurrently.  The record reflects that appellant received pretrial jail credit for time served in confinement, and the remainder of his sentence was suspended to probation.  A violation of probation warrant was subsequently filed, alleging that appellant had committed new offenses while on probation.  The trial court revoked his probation, and this appeal follows.  Appellant now alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement rather than extending appellant’s probation or placing appellant in the community corrections program.  After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff, a licensed attorney, filed this pro se third party action two weeks before his death on May 17, 2012. The defendants filed a suggestion of death under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.01. When no motion for substitution was filed during the prescribed time period, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. At the hearing on the motion, the decedent’s surviving spouse, who had practiced law with him, appeared by telephone and informed the trial court that she was not a party and was not representing the decedent or his estate with respect to the plaintiff’s third party complaint. Despite these representations, she asserted that the court should hear her argument as to why her late husband’s action should not be dismissed. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to timely seek substitution of party, and also granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The surviving spouse filed a notice of appeal. We hold that the defendants provided proper notice under Rule 25.01 by mailing a copy of the suggestion of death to the law firm address of decedent and his surviving spouse. We further hold that decedent’s surviving spouse did not have standing to file this appeal because (1) she was not a party, (2) did not represent her decedent husband, and (3) did not represent his estate, which had not been opened when the trial court entered its final judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and dismiss this appeal.

This appeal concerns the retroactive application of Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010), in which this Court held that trial courts have an affirmative duty, before accepting a guilty plea to a crime carrying a mandatory sentence of community supervision for life, to inform the defendant desiring to plead guilty of the consequence of lifetime supervision. In April 2011, a prisoner, who pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted rape in December 2000, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court for Sumner County alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowingly or intelligently entered because he had not been informed that he would be subject to lifetime community supervision following his release from prison. The trial court decided that the Post-Conviction Procedure Act’s statute of limitations should be tolled on due process grounds and that the prisoner was entitled to post-conviction relief because Ward v. State should be applied retroactively. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding no grounds for due process tolling and that Ward v. State did not announce a new rule of constitutional law requiring retroactive application. Bush v. State, No. M2011-02133-CCA-R3-PC, 2012 WL 2308280 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 15, 2012). We granted the prisoner’s appeal to clarify the standards governing retroactive application of this Court’s authoritative interpretations of the Tennessee Constitution and to resolve related issues in the interpretation of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. In accordance with the retroactivity framework for post-conviction proceedings the Tennessee General Assembly codified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-122 (2012), we have determined that our holding in Ward v. State does not require retroactive application and, therefore, that the prisoner is not entitled to tolling under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(b)(1) (2012). We also hold that the prisoner’s case does not warrant due process tolling. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The appellant, Curtis Allen White, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to three counts of aggravated assault, one count of domestic assault, one count of misdemeanor vandalism, and one count of resisting arrest.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to determine the length and manner of service of the sentences.  After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective five-year sentence to be served in confinement.  On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for alternative sentencing.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

D.K., Sr., (“Father”) appeals the termination of his rights to his three minor daughters E.K., H.K., and H.K. (collectively, “the Children”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) had a history of involvement with Father, the Children, and another older minor child, D.K., Jr.2 In 2007, all four children were taken into protective custody following an incident of domestic violence between Father and his then-wife, C.K. (“Stepmother”). In the earlier matter, custody of the four children was awarded to Stepmother; Father was allowed supervised visitation. In 2012, the Children were placed in the protective custody of DCS following allegations of physical and psychological abuse by Stepmother. Father was not a placement option because of “ongoing Juvenile Court matters” concerning D.K. Jr. as well as a lack of space in his home. Stepmother waived her right to a hearing and the Children were adjudicated dependent and neglected by an agreed order. They entered DCS custody and were placed in foster care.3 A year later, DCS initiated termination proceedings.

The appellant, Edward Fayte Webster, IV, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to nine counts of burglary, seven counts of felony vandalism, ten counts of misdemeanor vandalism, and eight counts of misdemeanor theft.  Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to determine the length and manner of service of the sentences.  After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective four-year sentence to be served in confinement.  On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for alternative sentencing.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

T.R.D. (“Mother”) and S.M.W. (“Father”) appeal the termination of their rights to four minor children, S.J.W., B.H.D., J.E.W., and J.C.D. (“the Children”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) had been involved with the family since 2006. DCS received multiple referrals regarding environmental neglect and lack of proper care of the Children. DCS made efforts to assist the parents in providing the Children with suitable housing and basic physical and medical care. In August 2010, DCS received another referral alleging environmental, medical, and nutritional neglect. New services were provided without substantial improvement. In October 2010, the Children were removed from the parents’ home and taken into temporary, protective custody. The following month, they were adjudicated dependent and neglected and placed in foster care. A year later, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parents’ rights. Following a bench trial, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple grounds for termination exist as to both parents and that termination is in the Children’s best interest. Both Mother and Father appeal. We affirm.