Richard Alan Ellis v. Donica Ann Woods Ellis
This is the second appeal in this divorce case. In Ellis v. Ellis, No. W2017-02287-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 410704 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019), we vacated the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro to Wife and its award of alimony in solido for Wife’s attorney’s fees. Contrary to our mandate, on remand, the trial court failed to consider Wife’s relative earning capacity in relation to the award of alimony in futuro. Although the trial court affirmed its previous award of alimony in solido, it failed to consider payments Wife made from pendente lite support she received from Husband. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro to reflect Wife’s earning capacity, and we modify the award of alimony in solido to reflect payments made from pendente lite support. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JESSE L. DABBS
The pro se petitioner, Jesse L. Dabbs, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Otis Lamar Taylor
The defendant, Otis Taylor, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original three-year sentence in confinement. Upon review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant violated the terms of his probation, and the imposed sentence is proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
C & C Tenn. Properties, LLC v. Reeves & Reeves Properties, LLC
This appeal concerns a legal dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant. The trial court found that the landlord, a recent purchaser of the commercial property, had breached the pre-existing lease. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Trent Et Al. v. Mountain Commerce Bank Et Al.
The issue presented is whether a quitclaim deed should be equitably reformed when reformation would benefit parties with constructive notice of a title defect and harm the rights of creditors with recorded judgment liens. A husband and wife quitclaimed parcels of real property to limited partnerships. The wife was omitted as a grantor on one of the quitclaim deeds even though she and her husband owned the property as tenants by the entirety. Two banks obtained judgments against the husband and wife and recorded the judgments. The property was later sold, and the purchasers and their lender discovered that the property was subject to the wife’s retained ownership interest and the banks’ recorded judgment liens. To remedy the error, the husband and wife signed a quitclaim deed of correction, referencing the wife’s omission as a grantor on the previous quitclaim deed. The purchasers and their lender then filed this declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to hold, based on mutual mistake, that the corrected quitclaim deed reformed the original quitclaim deed, vested ownership in the limited partnership, divested the wife’s interest, and removed the banks’ judgment liens. The trial court denied reformation, finding that there was no mutual mistake by the husband and the limited partnership who signed the original quitclaim deed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After considering the equities of the parties, we decline to grant reformation of the quitclaim deed because doing so would deprive the banks of their recorded judgment liens and benefit the purchasers and their lender who acquired the property with constructive notice of the wife’s remaining interest in the property and the banks’ recorded judgment liens. Thus, we need not decide whether reformation is an available remedy to correct a quitclaim deed by adding an omitted grantor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, based on different reasoning. |
Hamblen | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Fallon Jenkins Moore
A Sullivan County General Session Court found the defendant, Fallon Jenkins Moore, guilty of driving under the influence in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55- 10-401. The defendant appealed the judgment to the Criminal Court for Sullivan County and filed a suppression motion, arguing the police did not have reasonable suspicion to justify her initial seizure. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed, asserting the defendant’s seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we agree with the State and reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Nathan Jones
In February 2016, the Putnam County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Willie Nathan Jones, for first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder in the death of Rodney Richards and for attempted first degree murder of Stacy Maynard. Following a trial in April 2018, a jury found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder, for which Defendant received an effective sentence of thirty-seven years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by repeatedly referring to Mr. Richards and Ms. Maynard as “victims” throughout trial; (3) the trial court violated Defendant’s due process rights by preventing him from properly impeaching a State’s witness using the sheriff department’s “Use of Force” and “Critical Incident” guidelines; (4) the State violated Defendant’s right to a fair trial by “continuously commenting on the evidence and credibility during closing arguments”; (5) the trial court erred by failing to suppress Defendant’s statements to police because he was questioned while tired and under the influence and because Defendant’s request for counsel was not honored; (6) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentencing; and (7) cumulative error necessitates a new trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Doyle Wayne Mason, Jr.
The Defendant, Doyle Wayne Mason, Jr., was convicted by a jury of one count each of aggravated sexual battery, solicitation of a minor, and sexual battery by an authority figure; and eleven counts each of statutory rape by an authority figure, incest, and rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated sexual battery, solicitation of a minor, and rape; (2) a material and prejudicial variance existed between the bill of particulars and the State’s election relative to the aggravated sexual battery count; (3) the court “took on the role of the prosecutor” by questioning the victim and inadvertently conveyed to the jury that the court found the victim credible; (4) the court erred by admitting hearsay evidence that the victim reported the abuse to others; and (5) the sentence imposed by the court was excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shasta Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Shasta Jackson, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel advised her to testify at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquiceon Fields
The Defendant, Marquiceon Fields, was convicted of one count of rape of a child and was sentenced to twenty-eight years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to require the State to make an election of offenses, that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, and that the trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant as a Range II offender. The State concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. Based on our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction but modify his sentence to twenty-five years and remand for entry of an amended judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Thomas Russell
A jury convicted the Defendant, Gary Thomas Russell, of violating the sex offender residential restrictions and acquitted him of harboring a runaway child. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because he was not “alone with a minor” as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-211(k)(2). After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corbyn Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Corbyn Davis, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition challenging his convictions for first degree, premeditated murder and possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to provide him discovery in a timely manner, failing to investigate telephone records and social media accounts, failing to move to suppress the murder weapon, failing to present the testimony of a witness, and failing to prepare him for trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to show deficiency or prejudice with regard to each claim, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Michael Johnson
The defendant, James Michael Johnson, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his four-year sentence in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John M. Banks
Defendant, John M. Banks, was convicted of aggravated burglary (Count One), possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (Count Two), especially aggravated robbery (Count Three), and two counts of aggravated robbery (Counts Four and Five). The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of four years for aggravated burglary, eighteen years for especially aggravated robbery, and eight years for each count of aggravated robbery to run consecutively to a six-year sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for an effective twenty-four-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his two convictions for aggravated robbery, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to eighteen years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. Upon reviewing the record and applicable law, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery in Count Five and affirm the remaining convictions and sentences. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
KATHY ALEXANDER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
The Petitioner, Kathy Alexander, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, seeking relief from her guilty plea to theft of property valued $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, a Class B felony, and her resulting sentence of twenty years as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that she received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brice Cook v. State of Tennessee
The dispositive question in this appeal is whether the post-conviction judge should have recused himself because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. We answer this question in the affirmative and hold that the post-conviction judge was obligated to recuse himself in this case even though the petitioner failed to file a motion for recusal. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the post-conviction court is vacated; and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new post-conviction hearing before a different judge. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
In Re Estate Of Donald Cowan
The estate of the decedent appeals the trial court’s decision to grant the widow’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss the estate’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint, filed in 2019, sought rescission of a quitclaim deed executed by the decedentin 1990 that created a tenancy by the entirety with his wife. The complaint alleged that the decedent executed the deed shortly after the marriage in consideration of and reliance on “a contract” between the spouses. The complaint alleged that the contract obligated the husband “to create a tenancy by the entirety” and, in return, the wife was “obligated to cohabit with him and to provide the love, affection and companionship that was essential for a ‘long and enduring marriage.’” Although the couple remained married until the decedent’s death in 2018—28 years after they married—the complaint alleged that the 1990 deed should be rescinded for the failure of consideration and the failure of a condition subsequent. The complaint additionally asserted that the wife was unjustly enriched by the conveyance and asked that a constructive trust be imposed on the property. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that it did not allege facts that would give rise to any obligation upon the wife because the deed unambiguously evinced the husband’s intent to convey the property as a gift. The court also found, inter alia, the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations applicable to each claim, the doctrine of gross laches, and the statute of frauds. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessica Cox
The defendant, Jessica Cox, appeals her Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated child abuse and reckless endangerment, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of an expert witness, that the trial court erred by excluding certain testimony and preventing her from mounting a defense, and that the evidence was insufficient to support certain convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Church of God in Christ, Inc., et al. v. L.M. Haley Ministries, Inc., et al.
This appeal concerns a dispute over church property. David A. Hall (“Bishop Hall”), a bishop with The Church of God in Christ, Inc. (“COGIC”), tried to assert control over New Jerusalem Church of God in Christ (“New Jerusalem Church”), a COGIC member church, but was blocked by parties opposed to his pastorate. Bishop Hall, COGIC and New Jerusalem Church (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) sued these opponents (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiffs later filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Defendants appeal. Defendants argue, among other things, that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the Trial Court and this Court lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. However, we find this case amenable to resolution under the hybrid neutral-principles approach articulated by our Supreme Court in a factually similar case. The undisputed material facts show that New Jerusalem Church’s property is held in trust for COGIC and that Bishop Hall is the duly appointed Jurisdictional Bishop with rights of pastor at New Jerusalem Church. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tina Rogers Et Al. v. Adventure House LLC Et Al.
This negligence action arose from approximately 102 events of food poisoning or illness purportedly related to numerous patrons (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) who dined at or visited Adventure House, LLC d/b/a River Drifters Restaurant and River Drifters Adventure Center (“the Restaurant”), located on real property owned by Robert L. Newman (“the Premises”). Plaintiffs filed suit against the Restaurant; Mr. Newman; and Charles and Renee Eich, the owners of the Restaurant. Upon Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the action as a class action, the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“trial court”) denied Plaintiffs’ motion upon a determination that Plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden to prove the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation elements required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23.01. The trial court further determined that if those elements were met, the class could maintain its certification pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23.02(1)(b). However, based on its determination that the class did not satisfy the threshold certification requirements under Rule 23.01, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the litigation as a class action. Plaintiffs have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Rukia B. Et Al.
Nathan B. (“Father”) and Kendra B. (“Stepmother”) appeal the judgment of the Campbell County Circuit Court (the “Trial Court”) denying their petition for termination of the parental rights of Hannah B. (“Mother”), as to Mother’s two biological children. Because the Trial Court’s final order does not contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the best interests of the children, this Court is unable to engage in meaningful appellate review, and the judgment of the Trial Court is vacated and remanded. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Friendship Water Co. v. City of Friendship, Tennessee
Subsequent to the grant of partial summary judgment in the trial court, we granted an application for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having reflected upon the specific issue for which our Rule 9 order granted review, we are of the opinion that the present appeal was improvidently granted as framed. In addition, we observe that the trial court’s partial summary judgment order fails to clearly articulate the legal grounds upon which that order is based. Given our conclusion that the interlocutory appeal was improvidently granted, we dismiss the appeal. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Bank v. The Blumberg Trust Et Al.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of its Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24 motion to intervene. Because the trial court’s order does not state the basis for its denial of the motion, we cannot review the ultimate decision. Vacated and remanded. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Wolf Organization, Inc. v. TNG Contractors, LLC
This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s enrollment of Appellee’s Pennsylvania judgment. In enrolling the foreign judgment, the trial court omitted the 1.5% interest awarded by the Pennsylvania court and entered judgment only for the principal amount of the foreign judgment. In seeking to enforce its judgment, Appellee filed a bank levy against Appellant, wherein Appellee included the 1.5% interest. Because neither party raised an issue in the first appeal concerning whether the trial court’s omission of the interest was error, the question is waived, and Appellee is entitled to only post-judgment interest under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-14-121(a). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to quash Appellee’s bank levy in the amount of $40,482.03. The case is remanded for calculation of post-judgment interest consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teal Properties, Inc. v. C&H Commercial Contractors, Inc.
Relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(5) is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Outcomes, specifically judgments, occasioned by a party’s own inaction or lack of attention are not extraordinary. And a court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 60.02(5) motion when a judgment results from such circumstances. So we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals |