APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Upon the defendant’s plea of guilty to theft, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence to be served in the community corrections program. Although the defendant violated a condition of his release shortly after September 30, 2003, the revocation warrant was not filed and issued until ten months later. While revoking the community corrections sentence and ordering the defendant to serve the duration of his sentence in prison, the trial court approved credit for time served only through September 30, 2003, the estimated date of the violation. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the credit should have extended until the issuance of the revocation warrant. We hold that the filing date of the revocation warrant begins the tolling of sentence credits. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
 

This is an action to collect a debt and to recover collateral. The defendant LLC obtained a line of credit from the plaintiff bank. The LLC borrowed against the line of credit to purchase certain property, and the property was pledged as collateral. Several months later, the line of credit was converted into a fixed amount loan over a longer term, and a new security agreement was executed pledging the same collateral. On the same day, the LLC obtained another line of credit secured by the LLC’s accounts receivable. The next day, the LLC took an advance on the new line of credit. The LLC made monthly payments on both obligations for almost a year, and then it defaulted. The plaintiff bank filed this lawsuit against the LLC and its principal to collect on the loans and to recover the collateral. The LLC contended that the principal of the LLC did not sign key documents, did not authorize advances, and did not authorize the pledge of the collateral. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the bank based on, among other things, its finding that the principal of the LLC had ratified any allegedly unauthorized advances made under the lines of credit. The defendants now appeal. We reverse the finding of ratification as to one advance and remand for further findings; in all other respects, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
 

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Robert Page, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to serve thirty-eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner appealed, and this Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on facilitation was reversible error. State v. Robert Page, No. W2003-01342-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 3352994, at *16 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Aug. 26, 2004). Upon further review, our Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals judgment concluding that the failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses in the Petitioner’s case did not constitute plain error. State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223, 226 (Tenn. 2006). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Thomas H. Gilreath and Carol L. Gilreath (“Plaintiffs”) sued Donald G. Peters, II (“Defendant”) with regard to a right-of-way. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order on February 17, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendant had interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of the right-of-way, and that the right-of-way “should remain open and unobstructed ….” Defendant did not appeal this judgment. Plaintiffs later filed a motion for contempt. During a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendant made an oral motion seeking to set aside the February 17, 2010 order pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(5). After the hearing, the Trial Court entered its order denying Defendant’s Rule 60.02(5) motion, and finding Defendant in contempt of the Trial Court’s February 17, 2010 order. Defendant appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the denial of his Rule 60.02(5) motion, and the finding of contempt. We affirm.

The petitioner, Jerry W. Dickerson, filed in the Johnson County Circuit Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition.

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., dissenting.
This case pits the biological children of the deceased, being two sons, against Linda Caraway, who claims to be the widow of the deceased by virtue of a marriage ceremony that occurred thirteen days before his death on July 7, 2009. What is “on the line” is apparently the entire estate of the deceased. One of his sons testified that his father’s will of April 16, 2009 – the original of which was never found – left the deceased’s entire estate to Ms. Caraway.

The president of a company signed a commercial credit application. The application contained language immediately above the signature line stating that the individual signing the contract personally guaranteed amounts owed to the vendor. The company defaulted on the balance of the account, and the vendor filed suit against both the company and the president. The trial court granted summary judgment to the vendor, holding that the president had signed the contract both personally and in a representative capacity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the president had signed the contract only in a representative capacity and granted summary judgment to the president. We hold that the application contained explicit language sufficient to bind the president as an individual guarantor of the contract. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
 

The Petitioner, Bryan Keith Good, appeals as of right from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends (1) that the judgment against him is void because the State failed to include the name of the victim in the indictment and (2) that subsequent amendment of the indictment did not cure the alleged defect. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

A construction company entered into a contract with the State of Tennessee to restructure an interstate interchange. The contract provides that the contract completion date “may be extended in accordance with the Standard Specifications, however, no incentive payment will be made if work is not completed in its entirety by December 15, 2006.” The Claims Commission found that the contract contained a latent ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence to interpret the contract. The Claims Commission considered extrinsic evidence and concluded that the construction company was entitled to the maximum incentive payment and an extension of the contract completion date. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Claims Commission. We hold that the contract is unambiguous and does not permit an extension of the incentive date. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the Claims Commission for modification of the final judgment.
 

The employee sought workers’ compensation for a back injury which arose out of and in the scope of his employment with the employer. The trial court found that because the employee had a meaningful return to work and was subsequently dismissed for job misconduct, he was limited to benefits of 1.5 times the 20% anatomical impairment rating. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings; the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The appellant, Donald Smith, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), reserving the following certified question of law: “Whether the [appellant’s] detention at [the] scene of a traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged such that it violated . . . Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and/or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

During a trial of the plaintiffs’ premises liability claim, the trial court excluded as hearsay a portion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert. The expert would have testified that he consulted an authoritative source whose interpretation of the applicable building code was consistent with that of the testifying expert. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred because the expert’s testimony was admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s error was harmless, however, and affirmed the judgment. We hold that the Court of Appeals improperly applied an amended version of Rule 703 that was not in effect at the time of trial. We hold that the trial court properly excluded as hearsay portions of the proffered testimony of the testifying expert. We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The employee, who sustained injuries while removing tree limbs at a job site, filed a claim for workers’ compensation. The employer denied benefits, contending that the injury was the result of the employee’s intoxication and misconduct. While concluding that the employee was not guilty of willful misconduct, the trial court ruled that his intoxication was a proximate cause of the injuries and, therefore, denied the claim. The employee appealed, alleging that the trial court erred by finding that he was intoxicated at the time of his injuries and that the intoxication was the proximate cause. This appeal was referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the employee was intoxicated and his intoxication proximately caused his injuries, the judgment is affirmed.

Paternal Grandparents filed a motion to intervene in a divorce action between Mother and Father, seeking custody of the parties’ two minor children. The trial court ultimately awarded custody to Mother and ordered Grandparents to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney’s fees and costs. Grandparents appeal, arguing that Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-103(c) only provides for awards of attorney’s fees against spouses in a custody matter, and therefore, the trial court was not authorized to order them to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees. We affirm.

DCS filed a Petition to terminate the parental rights of the father. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court determined there were statutory grounds to terminate the father's parental rights, and that it was in the best interest of the children that his rights be terminated. The father appealed and did not question that statutory grounds existed for termination, but argued that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the father with his children. We conclude the father failed to demonstrate that the Department did not make reasonable efforts for reunification. The evidence is clear and convincing that the Department made reasonable efforts for reunification. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

The two sons of decedent asked the Court to declare that their father died intestate and that his marriage to appellant a few days before he died was void because he was neither competent to make a will or enter into a marriage contract. Upon trial, the jury determined that the deceased was not of sound mind when he executed a will, a copy of which was filed in evidence, and the will was obtained through undue influence of appellant. The jury also found that the marriage between the decedent and appellant was invalid as well. The Trial Judge approved the jury verdict and appellant has appealed. We hold that material evidence supports the jury verdict as approved by the Trial Judge and remand.

In this case, Kimberlie Lois Edmonson (“Ms. Edmonson”) filed suit against Terry Lynn Wilson (“Mr. Wilson”) for breach of an alleged partnership agreement. Prior to trial, the parties reached an agreement. Following the announcement of the agreement in court by counsel, Ms. Edmonson refused to honor the agreement. Mr. Wilson filed a motion to enforce the agreement, and the trial court denied the motion. The case proceeded to a bench trial, and the court held in favor of Ms. Edmonson. Mr. Wilson appeals. We hold that the court should have enforced the settlement agreement and reverse the decision of the court.

We granted permission to appeal in this post-conviction capital case to consider whether the courts below erred in holding that the state and federal constitutional right against self incrimination does not afford a post-conviction petitioner who chooses to testify the right to limit the scope of the State’s cross-examination. However, we need not decide whether and in what manner the constitutional right against self-incrimination applies in the post conviction context because this appeal can be resolved on non-constitutional grounds. We have concluded that the scope of cross-examination of a post-conviction petitioner is governed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section 8(C)(1)(d). The judgments of the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals are vacated, and this matter is remanded for a new post-conviction hearing at which Petitioner shall be afforded the right to testify subject to the limited scope cross-examination provided by Rule 28, section 8(C)(1)(d).

The Petitioner, Erskine Leroy Johnson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis from his 1985 conviction for felony murder. He contends that newly discovered evidence entitles him to a new trial. He also contends that the trial court improperly weighed the newly discovered evidence and failed to assess that evidence in the context of the evidentiary record as a whole in determining whether the result of the trial may have been different. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the Petitioner’s felony murder conviction, and remand the case for a new trial.

This case involves the valuation of assets for division of marital property and alimony. Wife filed for divorce, seeking an equitable division of the marital assets, including Husband’s one-half interest in a real estate partnership. At trial, each party introduced experts to testify as to the value of Husband’s interest in the partnership. The trial court valued the partnership at a fair market value that was between the values testified to by the experts. The court awarded Wife one-half of the value, awarded Wife one-half of a note that was based on property Husband owned prior to the marriage, and awarded Wife alimony. After a motion to alter or amend, the trial court reduced Wife’s interest in the partnership and the note to take into account Husband’s tax liability. Wife appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in valuing the partnership and in its alimony award. Affirmed.

This appeal centers on the effective date of a judgment against Appellant–2000 or 2004. Appellant argues that both the equitable estoppel and law of the case doctrines bar Plaintiff from arguing that the judgment was entered in 2004, and therefore, that it has not expired. The trial court found that the judgment had not expired, and we affirm.
 

The defendant, Kenneth Spencer, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. He raises the following four issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior bad acts; and (4) whether the trial court impermissibly commented upon the evidence by issuing an incomplete statement to the jury on the element of premeditation. Based on our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. We further conclude, however, that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly commenting on the evidence and giving an incomplete statement of the law in its expanded premeditation instruction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. I, however, would affirm the trial court on the merits of its sentencing decision.

Husband argues on appeal that the trial court erred in holding a hearing on his wife’s petition for an order of protection when his attorney was not present. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

Purchasers of house sued sellers for breach of contract because, contrary to the sale agreement, the house was not connected to the sewer. After a trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the purchasers for the cost of connecting the house to the sewer. In this appeal, the sellers argue that the trial court erred in applying the wrong statute of limitations, in finding in favor of the purchasers, in using the wrong measure of damages, and in the award of attorney fees. We find no error in the trial court’s decision.