APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Devin Jefferson, of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of attempted robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress his statement to police because (1) the police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to remain silent, (2) the police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel, and (3) his statement was coerced. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a disciplinaryproceeding against a Memphis lawyer who pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court for Shelby County to facilitating the felonious violation of the Tennessee Securities Act. After a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel recommended that he be disbarred, the lawyer filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Shelby County seeking judicial review of the hearing panel’s decision. The trial court affirmed the recommendation of the hearing panel, and the lawyer appealed to this Court. On appeal, the Board of Professional Responsibility asserts that the lawyer’s petition should be dismissed because his petition for writ of certiorari did not contain the recitation required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-106 (2000). For his part, the lawyer asserts that the punishment of disbarment is excessive. We have determined that the lawyer’s deficient petition for writ of certiorari does not prevent the courts from reviewing the hearing panel’s decision. We have also determined that the record fully supports the hearing panel’s findings and that disbarring the lawyer is not an excessive punishment in light of the facts and circumstances of this case.

Restaurant patron who was served food in which he found a tooth sued the restaurant for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. He sought compensatory and punitive damages. At trial, the court granted a directed verdict to defendant on the punitive damages and Consumer Protection Act claims and denied plaintiff’s special request that the court instruct the jury that recoverable damages for mental and emotional distress could also include anxiety or concern for others. Plaintiff appeals the grant of the directed verdicts and the failure to give the requested instruction. Finding no error, we affirm.

I concur in the judgment of the Court, but I do not concur in the reasoning of the majority opinion.

This is a case involving life insurance and a Power of Attorney. After Decedent named Appellant as his attorney-in-fact through a Power of Attorney, the Appellant changed Decedent’s life insurance policy to name herself as primary beneficiary. Appellee, the
previous beneficiary of the policy, filed this action to prevent Appellant from receiving the proceeds, alleging fraud. The trial court found that the Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act prevented Appellant from changing the beneficiary of the policy. Further, the trial court held that Appellant’s argument that she had actual authority to make the change was an affirmative defense that was waived by Appellant’s failure to specifically plead it. Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

Defendant, James Beeler, an attorney, was cited for contempt of court in the Washington County Criminal Court because, during a court proceeding, he communicated with his client’s co-defendant who was represented by other counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court found Defendant in contempt of court and imposed a fine and a sentence of ten days in jail. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court suspended Defendant’s sentence. Defendant now appeals his conviction and asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for contempt of court. He specifically argues that it was error for the trial court to enforce Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8 or to charge Defendant with criminal contempt for a violation of Supreme Court Rule 8. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court granted Whitney Marie MacRae (“Wife”) a divorce by default against Thomas Paul MacRae (“Husband”). The default was based upon Husband’s failure to comply with an order compelling him to respond to Wife’s discovery requests. Shortly after Wife remarried – which was nearly a year after the divorce judgment was entered – Husband filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the motion. Husband appeals from that denial. Wife argues that the judgment should not be set aside; she seeks damages for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We also find the appeal to be frivolous and remand to the trial court for a determination of the damages due Wife pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 1-122 (2000).

Rodney T. Rzezutko and Sandra Rzezutko (“Defendants”) appeal a Circuit Court order dismissing Defendants’ appeal of a General Sessions Court interlocutory order dated September 21, 2010. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (“Plaintiff”) raises an issue on appeal with regard to the Circuit Court vacating the General Sessions Court’s September 21, 2010 order. We find and hold that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a General Sessions Court order. The Circuit Court, therefore, correctly dismissed Defendants’ appeal. We affirm this dismissal. However, as the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction, it was error to vacate the September 21, 2010 General Sessions Court order. We, therefore, vacate that portion of the Circuit Court order vacating the September 21, 2010 order, and reinstate the September 21, 2010 General Sessions Court interlocutory order.

The defendant contractor entered into a contract to replace a roof. When the newly installed roof developed leaks, the defendant hired an independent contractor to make the necessary repairs. While performing the work, the independent contractor caused a fire, resulting in an $871,069.73 insurance claim by the homeowners. As subrogor to the homeowners’ rights and claims arising out of the fire, the plaintiff insurance company sued the defendant in both tort and in contract. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that because he had subcontracted the work, he could not be liable. The trial court granted the motion on both the negligence and breach of contract claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant had a non-delegable contractual duty to perform the roofing services in a careful, skillful, and workmanlike manner. This Court granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in order to determine the propriety of the claim under the theory of contract. Because the defendant had an implied non-delegable duty to install the roof in a careful, skillful, diligent, and workmanlike manner, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Tennessee Bank, N.A. (“the Trustee”) is the trustee of a testamentary trust established under the will of Steve Woodward (“the Deceased”) for the benefit of his son, Jeffrey Clinton Woodward (“the Son”). Steve Woodward died in 2005. The Deceased’s will (“the Will”) provides that at his death a trust was to be created for the benefit of the Son. The Son is to receive a monthly payment from the trust and, at age 50, the Son is to receive the corpus of the trust. The Deceased’s brother, Harold Woodward (“the Brother”), is the recipient under the Will of “all of the property that would make up my residual estate and not named herein. . . .” The trust was created and payments were being made to the Son until he died in 2009 at the age of 33. The Trustee filed this action asking the court to determine its obligations as trustee with respect to the corpus of the trust. The suit named all parties with a possible interest in the outcome as defendants, including the Son’s estranged wife, Andrea Woodward (“the Wife”). The trial court ordered the Trustee to distribute the corpus of the trust to the Brother. The Wife appeals. We reverse.

This is a divorce case. The parties had a long marriage and one minor child. The wife obtained an order of protection against the husband on behalf of herself and the child and filed for divorce. After a trial, the trial court granted the wife a divorce, extended the order of protection against the husband, and divided the marital assets. The trial court did not award the husband parenting time, and required the husband to attend anger management classes and pay child support. The wife was awarded the marital home subject to a lien in favor of the husband. The husband appeals the child support and the failure to award him parenting time. The wife appeals the trial court’s award of a lien on the parties’ marital residence in favor of the husband. We affirm as to parenting time and child support, and reverse as to the lien on the marital residence.

In this modification of child custody case, Father petitioned the court to change custody based on Mother’s relocation and the subsequent interference with his visitation. Finding a material change in circumstances, the juvenile court named Father primary residential parent. Mother appeals. Concluding that a material change in circumstances existed and the change in custody was in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

A Van Buren County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jerrie Bryant, of second degree murder. This Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions,but we vacated her sentences and remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Jerrie Bryant, No. M2007-02057-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 544650, *1-13 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 20, 2008), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Wife appeals the trial court’s decision to substantially reduce her alimony, contending there has not been a substantial and material change of circumstances. The parties were divorced in 2005 following a thirty year marriage. In 2008, Husband filed a petition for modification of alimony. The trial court held that a decrease in Husband’s income constituted a substantial and material change of circumstance, which warranted the reduction in alimony. The trial court also held that Husband was entitled to interest on overpayments of alimony. Wife appealed. We reverse based on the finding that there was not a substantial and material change of circumstance. We also find that although Husband is entitled to recover overpayments of alimony following the first appeal, he is not entitled to interest on the overpayments. Wife has requested her attorney’s fees. Applying the principles stated in Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, __S.W.3d __, 2011 WL 4116654 (Tenn. Sept. 16, 2011), we find Wife is not entitled to recover her attorney’s fees on appeal.

Alan Howard Peters was seriously injured when his vehicle collided with logs that had rolled off a truck. He and his wife filed this personal injury action and thereafter settled their claims against the defendant tortfeasors for policy limits of $1 million. In doing so, they reserved their claim against the uninsured motorist (“UM”) carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”). The UM provisions in effect with CIC were set forth in an endorsement to a 2005 renewal of an umbrella policy. The UM endorsement to the original policy issued in 1999 and to the first renewal issued in 2002 expressly limited UM coverage to $1 million. A space in the 2005 renewal endorsement form that was intended for insertion of the UM policy limits was left blank, which, by default, rendered the limits of the UM endorsement equal to the $2 million liability limits of the umbrella policy. After the dismissal of the claims against the tortfeasors, CIC amended its answer to include a counterclaim asking the court to reform the policy to make the UM limits equal to the $1 million limits of the previous policies. The trial court entered an order reforming the policy. Subsequently the court entered an order dismissing the remaining claim against CIC. Mr. and Mrs. Peters appeal. We affirm.

American Express Bank, FSB, sued Michael Fitzgibbons on a sworn account for unpaid credit card debt. It later sought summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered a judgment against Fitzgibbons for $25,766.70 plus attorney’s fees and costs. Fitzgibbons appeals. We affirm.

Defendant-Appellee, Clifford Edward Clark, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. Clark filed several motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment because of lost or destroyed evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), which were denied. Clark then filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court took under advisement. The trial court subsequently dismissed the indictment and suppressed certain evidence pursuant to both Ferguson and Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). In this appeal by the State, it argues that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment and erred in granting Clark’s motions to suppress based on its holdings that: (1) the search of Clark’s vehicle violated Gant, and (2) the State’s loss or destruction of certain evidence violated Ferguson. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s judgment, reinstate Clark’s indictment, suppress the photographic evidence of the camera housing, and remand for trial.

The plaintiff in this automobile accident case has filed a notice of appeal from an order entered on July 26, 2011, granting him a judgment in the amount of $250,000. Because the trial court has set aside the judgment and set the case for a jury trial, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

This is a premises liability case in which the Plaintiff/Appellant, a resident of Defendants/Appellees’ condominium complex, was assaulted by unknown individuals. Appellant filed suit, asserting negligence on the part of Appellees in failing to timely repair a vehicle access gate on the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees, finding that Appellees owed no duty to Appellant as the harm was not reasonably foreseeable. We conclude that the evidence creates a dispute as to whether the underlying assault was foreseeable and, therefore, the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. Reversed and remanded.

This is an appeal of an alimony award. The trial court entered an order declaring Husband and Wife divorced, but reserved all financial issues, including alimony, for trial at a later date. After the trial, the trial court entered a final order awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony and ordering her to undergo a vocational rehabilitation evaluation. Husband filed a petition for contempt and to modify the final order based on Wife’s failure to file proof of her completion of a vocational rehabilitation evaluation. In response, Wife filed proof of her completed vocational rehabilitation evaluation, and filed a counter-petition for contempt and to modify the final order seeking alimony in futuro. Subsequently, Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.01, arguing that the language of the final order failed to include the trial court’s findings that the alimony award was not final, and was subject to change based on the results of the vocational rehabilitation evaluation. The trial court granted Wife’s Rule 60.01 motion, and conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate nature and amount of alimony to be awarded based on the results of the vocational rehabilitation evaluation. Following the hearing, the trial court awarded Wife alimony in futuro, increased the amount of alimony awarded, and required Husband to maintain additional life insurance to secure his alimony in futuro obligation. Husband appeals the order granting Wife’s Rule 60.01 motion, and further argues that Wife was required to show a substantial and material change of circumstances to warrant a modification of the original rehabilitative alimony award. Finding that the trial court’s alimony award was not final, and therefore the trial court retained jurisdiction to consider the results of the vocational rehabilitation evaluation, we affirm the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro.

This appeal concerns the termination of parental rights. The mother is appealing the juvenile court’s judgment terminating her parental rights. The child at issue was initially taken from his mother’s custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services after his school reported excessive tardiness and absences. The juvenile court determined that the child was homeless, and that the mother would not provide for his needs. The child was placed with a relative. Lengthy proceedings ensued. The Department filed a petition to terminate the mother’s rights, which was eventually tried by the juvenile court. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights, and the mother now appeals, arguing that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any statutory grounds for termination, failed to prove that it made reasonable efforts to reunify, and failed to prove that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the child. We affirm.

The Defendant, Jeremy Brandon Scott, pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-102 (2006) (amended 2009, 2010, 2011). Although he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years and six months with six months’ confinement, a conflict exists regarding the length of probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion and his request for three years’ probation. We affirm the denial of judicial diversion and the imposition of six months’ confinement. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the Davidson County Criminal Court for clarification of the length of probation and entry of a corrected judgment.

Appellant failed to timely file his Notice of Appeal.  Thus, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On August 4, 2008, the Montgomery County grand jury charged the defendant, Lejeanra E. Polk and a co-defendant, Nicole T. Davis, with one count of premeditated first degree murder, see T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (1991 and Supp. 1995), and one count of first degree felony murder, see id. § 39-13-202(a)(2), for the November 1995 stabbing death of Carolyn Vega-Velasquez. Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder and felony murder. At sentencing, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the felony murder conviction and imposed a life sentence by operation of law. See id. § 39-13-208(c). The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Discerning no infirmity in the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Brandon Ryan Weston, pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary of an automobile, Class E felonies, and to two counts of theft of property over $1,000, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to an effective sentence of two years and one day in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve his sentences consecutively to his sentences in case number 08CR365 and Hamblen County case number 08CR437. The trial court also revoked the defendant’s probation in case numbers 08CR365 and 08CR437. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.