APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a conservatorship. When the respondent was eighty-three years old, her sister
died and left the respondent over $200,000. The bulk of the inheritance was placed in an irrevocable
trust for the respondent’s benefit, and the deceased sister’s former attorney was appointed as the trustee. Soon, the respondent began to spend her inheritance at a rapid rate, with much of the spending benefitting her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend. The respondent then purchased a $200,000 home to live in with her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend, with the expectation that the $1,800 monthly mortgage would be paid out of the trust.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the police violated the constitutional rights of the defendant, a parolee, when they searched her residence without a warrant but pursuant to a condition of her parole. We adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), and hold that parolees who are subject to a warrantless search condition may be searched without reasonable or individualized suspicion. The officers who searched the defendant’s residence knew about her parole status, were aware of the warrantless search condition of her parole, and did not conduct the search in an unreasonable manner. Accordingly, the trial court erred in suppressing evidence found during the search of the defendant’s residence. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, Barry R. Moore, was a truck driver. He was employed by a small corporation owned by a senior vice president of a large trucking company, Howard Baer, Inc. The smaller company leased his services to the larger one. He suffered a significant on-the-job injury. Mr. Moore obtained a judgment for workers’ compensation benefits against his employer, Ronald Baker, Inc. That corporation did not have workers’ compensation insurance and immediately discharged the debt in bankruptcy. He sought to receive benefits from Howard Baer, Inc., that he had been leased to, arguing that his employer was the “alter ego” of the larger company. The trial court found that the larger company was not liable for benefits, based upon the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-106(1)(A). We reluctantly affirm the judgment.1
 

The employee, Reginald G. Peck, sought benefits for an alleged work-related injury to his lower back. The trial court found for the employer, Hochman Family Partners, L.P., and dismissed the complaint. Mr. Peck has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by entering judgment for the employer, and by denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 1 We affirm the judgment.

Defendants sold materials containing asbestos to the deceased’s employer, where he was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma from which he died. Plaintiff’s widow brought this action against the supplier, a jury trial resulted and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, which the Trial Court approved. On appeal, we hold that certain jury instructions were error and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

The petitioner, William C. Brothers, pled nolo contendere to two counts of aggravated sexual battery and received an effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County which was dismissed. On appeal, the petitioner argues: (1) the indictment was defective; (2) he was no protected from double jeopardy; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the State failed to identify any evidence to prove its allegations. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the denial of relief.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee suffered a compensable injury to his lower back, which resulted in two surgical procedures and a 12% anatomical impairment. Subsequently, his treating physician recommended an additional surgical procedure. Employer declined to pay for the procedure, contending that intervening events caused the need for surgery. The trial court awarded Employee 18% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The trial court also found that the additional procedure was related to the original work injury, and ordered Employer to pay for it. On appeal, Employer contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s ruling. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

Claimant filed this claim for damages seeking return of bond money he had posted. He alleged a violation of his constitutional rights resulted when the State charged him for the same two crimes in two different counties. The State responded with a motion to dismiss contending that the Claims Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion. Claimant appeals. We affirm.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Randy Joe McNew, of driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender, see T.C.A. § 55-10-616 (2004), violating the vehicle registration law, see id. § 55-5-115, and driving under the influence, see id. § 55-10-401. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of four years to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, argues that a violation of the rule of sequestration rendered a State’s witness incompetent to testify, claims that the trial court erred by refusing to rule prior to trial on the admissibility of evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, and attacks the sentencing decision of the trial court. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Joseph Wayne Graves, was found guilty of aggravated assault,aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and theft of property valued at more than $500 butless than $1000. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of sixty-three years. On appeal,Defendant alleges: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence; (2)the evidence presented does not support his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm Graves’convictions; however, we conclude that double jeopardy protections require that the convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and theft be merged. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for purposes of merger and for entry of corrected judgments of conviction.

After Plaintiff was injured in a car accident, she filed suit against the minor who was driving the other vehicle and against the minor’s father, alleging that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his son pursuant to the family purpose doctrine. Father moved for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed facts showed that the family purpose doctrine was inapplicable as a matter of law. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, claiming that the family purpose doctrine was applicable as a matter of law. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Father. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Plaintiff’s motion, as we find the family purpose doctrine applicable to this case.

This appeal involves the enforcement of a marital dissolution agreement, which provided that the parties would jointly own various retirement accounts after their divorce. Several years after the divorce, the wife filed a petition for relief alleging that the husband was using the funds in the retirement accounts for his own benefit and denying her access to the funds. The trial court essentially divided the retirement funds between the parties and ordered the husband to repay the wife one-half of the funds he had withdrawn since the divorce. The husband appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Landy M. Clemmons, appeals his convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Knox County for two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court merged the two aggravated burglary convictions and sentenced the Defendant to nine years as a Range II, multiple offender for the aggravated burglary and to eleven years as a Range I, violent offender for each of the aggravated kidnappings, to be served concurrently, for an effective eleven-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his convictions for both aggravated burglary and aggravated kidnapping violate principles of due process. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two children. Father appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his child with Mother. Finding clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s determination, we affirm.

The petitioner, Clemmie Rhyan, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner, convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, is currently serving a twenty-two-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) investigate the case and locate witnesses for the defense; and (2) present evidence, including thorough cross-examination of State witnesses supporting the theory of self-defense. Following review of the record, we find no error in the denial of the petition and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Snodgrass’s 401(k) account was not transmuted to marital property when he withdrew a portion of its funds for the purchase of a family home, as well as its holding regarding the division of the parties’ pensions. I further agree with the majority’s determination that 401(k) accounts are “retirement . . . benefit rights relating to employment” for the purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(b)(1)(B), and that the contributions made by Mr. Snodgrass and Mrs. Snodgrass prior to the marriage (the “premarital contributions”) should be classified as separate property because they did not, as the statute requires, “accrue[] during the period of the marriage.” I disagree, however, with the rationale by which the majority concludes that the increase in the value of the premarital contributions qualified as marital property. Instead, I would remand for consideration of whether the increases in value could be traced to the premarital contributions of each to their respective 401(k)s and have not been subjected to commingling (inextricably mingled with marital property) or, in the alternative, whether the increases became marital through the concept of substantial contribution (to the preservation and appreciation of the premarital contributions).

This appeal involves claims made by a sister against her brother’s estate in addition to a separate dispute between the sister and the brother’s estate regarding how much money the estate was owed from the sale of a house owned by the brother and his siblings. The trial court referred the matters to a special master, who found in favor of the sister on some of the claims. Upon review of the special master’s report, however, the trial court rejected the special master’s findings in favor of the sister and ruled in favor of the brother’s estate. The sister appeals, claiming that the trial court should have deferred to the special master. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Allen Jean Stephens, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the state’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

In this ejectment action, the plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s finding that they did not prove title to the property at issue by adverse possession in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-105 and that they failed to show the boundaries of the property they claimed. Plaintiffs also contend that they were entitled to the presumption of ownership set forth at Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-109. Finding no basis to reverse the judgment of the trial court, we affirm same.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit after discovering damage to a Mercedes-Benz that had been represented to them as a new vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim against all defendants and plaintiffs’ breach of contract and warranty claims against defendant Mercedes-Benz USA. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

This is an appeal from an order terminating a mother’s parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, among others. The trial court found that termination was in the children’s best interest. The mother appeals, and we affirm.

Appellant previously acted as co-conservator of respondent’s estate and person. He was removed from this capacity due to difficulties with his co-conservator cousin. Appellant sought to be renamed conservator of respondent’s estate, but the trial court instead appointed an independent conservator citing Appellant’s previous removal as conservator, the distance Appellant lives from respondent, and the fact that Appellant’s mother is currently acting as conservator of respondent’s person. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s appointment of Robert T. Condo as conservator of respondent’s estate, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Gregory Allen Cathey, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with the Court’s conclusion that the nonclaim statutes in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 30-2-
307(a)(1), -310(a) (2007) do not prevent the Bureau of TennCare from recovering correctly paid
medical benefits from the late Martha M. Tanner’s estate. My two-fold purpose in preparing this
separate opinion is to explain my understanding of the basis for the estate’s liability and to address the application of the statutory recovery procedures when a TennCare recipient’s family decides against probating the deceased recipient’s estate.