APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an action by the administrator of the estate of Louisianna McClaron (“the decedent” or “Ms. McClaron”) to recover assets converted by the decedent’s attorneys-in-fact based upon, inter alia, their use of the power of attorney to name themselves as joint owners with right of survivorship on the decedent’s financial accounts, as the pay-on-death beneficiaries of her annuities, and as beneficiaries of the decedent’s life insurance policies. The attorneys-in-fact used the power of attorney to sell real estate, the proceeds of which they deposited into a joint account that benefitted themselves. They also used the power of attorney to transfer $112,000 of the decedent’s bank funds to themselves and their children. The attorneys-in-fact admitted to engaging in all of the transactions identified in the complaint and did not contest the existence of a confidential relationship; rather, they denied liability, contending their actions were authorized and beneficial to Ms. McClaron based on “an understanding” they had with her. They contended to having an oral agreement with the decedent whereby they would care for and assist the decedent and her sister, who lived together, until they died, at which time the attorneys-in-fact would receive the decedent’s estate. Following discovery and the admission by the attorneys-in-fact of all the material facts set forth in the administrator’s statement of undisputed facts, the administrator moved for partial summary judgment. After ruling that any evidence of a purported understanding with the decedent was barred pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute, the trial court granted partial summary judgment as to liability on the basis of the presumption of undue influence and the breach of fiduciary duties by the attorneys-in-fact for engaging in transactions that resulted in no benefit to the decedent. Following a bench trial on damages, the court entered a judgment identifying the property to be restored to the estate and the amount of damages to be awarded; the court also declared a deed purportedly conveying the decedent’s home to the attorneys-in-fact null and void. The attorneys-in-fact appeal, contending the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate because material facts are in dispute. More specifically, they contend the trial court erroneously deemed the subject of their “understanding” or “agreement” with Ms. McClaron inadmissible under the Dead Man’s Statute, which precluded them from presenting clear and convincing evidence of the fairness of the transactions or how Ms. McClaron benefitted from the transactions. The record before us reveals it is undisputed that the attorneys-in-fact exercised the power of attorney; therefore, a fiduciary relationship existed. See Childress v. Currie, 74 S.W.3d 324, 328–29 (Tenn. 2002). As a consequence, they owed a fiduciary duty to deal with Ms. McClaron’s property in the “utmost good faith,” see Ralston v. Hobbs, 306 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009), and to act primarily for the benefit of Ms. McClaron, see McRedmond v. Est. of Marianelli,46 S.W.3d 730, 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). However, the undisputed facts establish that the transactions orchestrated by the Johnsons were not necessary to protect the interest of Ms. McClaron. See Folts v. Jones, 132 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tenn. 1939). The undisputed facts establish that Ms. McClaron did not benefit from the transactions at issue and the transactions were not fair to Ms. McClaron. In contrast, the undisputed facts reveal that the Johnsons benefitted from each transaction. Having determined that the undisputed material facts and the relevant legal principles fully support the trial court’s determination that the Johnsons breached their fiduciary duties to Ms. McClaron as well as the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the administrator of the estate on the issue of liability, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

Pursuant to its authority to investigate unfair or deceptive trade practicesunder the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-18-101, et seq., Appellee Office of the Tennessee Attorney General (“AG”) issued requests for information to Appellant Wall and Associates, Inc. (“Wall”). Tenn. Code Ann. § 47‑18‑106(a). Wall failed to comply with the AG’s requests, and the trial court entered orders compelling compliance and issuing sanctions. Wall appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, Jose Guadalupe Frausto-Magallanes, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell more than fifteen grams of heroin with an agreed sentence length of eight years as a Range I standard offender with the trial court to determine the manner of service. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his entire eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found that Appellant, a Florida attorney, breached his fiduciary duty to Appellees, his clients, and disgorged Appellant of all fees paid by Appellees except for $5,000. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this post-divorce case, the trial court granted Appellee/Wife’s petition to modify paragraph 4(A)(d) of the parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”) on its finding of mutual mistake. The trial court declined to: (1) reform paragraph 4(A)(e) of the MDA; (2) find Appellant/Husband in contempt of the MDA for failure to reimburse Wife for certain college expenses of the parties’ son; (3) hold Husband in contempt for his alleged failure to satisfy his support obligations; and (4) award Wife her attorney’s fees under the MDA. Because there was no mutual mistake, we reverse the trial court’s reformation of paragraph 4(A)(d) of the MDA. The trial court’s orders are otherwise affirmed, and Wife’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is denied.

Appellant filed suit against Appellees concerning purported violations of his constitutional rights, among other allegations. The trial court ultimately dismissed the case based on insufficiency of service of process and that Appellant’s claims failed to state a claim as a matter of law. Appellant now appeals. Based on our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Crystal Michelle Rickman, of aggravated assault and domestic assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This case involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a child’s biological father and for step-parent adoption. The trial court terminated the biological father’s rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to visit, abandonment for failure to support, and wanton disregard. The court held that termination was in the child’s best interest. Biological father appeals asserting that the trial court erred in not granting him a continuance on the day of trial and that the trial court erred in its best interest determination. We vacate the trial court’s conclusion that termination was warranted on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and abandonment by engaging in conduct that exhibited wanton disregard for the child’s welfare, but we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the biological father’s rights should be terminated on the ground of failure to visit in the four months preceding his incarceration and that terminating his parental rights is in the best interest of the child. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination of the biological father’s parental rights.

Defendant was convicted by a Lewis County Circuit Court jury of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and sentenced by the trial court to two years in the Department of Correction, suspended to unsupervised probation.  Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for judicial diversion.  Based on our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment dismissal of his complaint against the defendant hospital pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 68-11-262.[1] The trial court held, inter alia, that this court’s decision in Fowler v. Morristown-Hamblen Hospital Association, No. E2018-00782-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2571081 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2019)[2] mandated dismissal because Section 68-11-262 does not create a private right of action.  The plaintiff alleges on appeal that the trial court’s reliance upon Fowler was misplaced because his action is one for contract and therefore not dependent upon the legislature’s creation of a private right of action.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Torius Saville Russell, was indicted for one count of first degree felony murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment. After the State closed its proof in chief, the trial court dismissed the attempted first degree murder count and partially dismissed the first degree felony murder count, allowing the jury to consider the lesser included offense of second degree murder. Defendant was convicted of second degree murder as a lesser included offense of felony murder, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment. Defendant received a total effective sentence of 50 years. Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish Defendant’s identity as the shooter; (2) the trial court erred in partially granting Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to first degree felony murder and allowing the State to pursue a lesser included offense; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial after the State’s witness made two hearsay statements; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of 40 years for second degree murder and in ordering the second degree murder sentence to be served consecutively to his sentences for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) substantial noncompliance with permanency plans; (3) persistence of conditions; and (4) failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody of the children. Although we vacate the trial court’s finding of substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, we affirm the remaining grounds, as well as the trial court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests. 

The Defendant, Thomas Eugene Williams, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of the remainder of his two-year sentence for failure to appear. Although the Defendant acknowledges that he violated the terms of his probationary sentence, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring him to serve the balance of his sentence in custody rather than ordering an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Domestic Relations Court for Meigs County dismissed a petition for order of protection, and the petitioner appealed to the Chancery Court for Meigs County (the “trial court”). The trial court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the appeal. Because the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse.

In this personal injury negligence action, the defendant died while the litigation was pending.  The plaintiff failed to file a motion for substitution of party within ninety days of the original defendant’s death being suggested on the record.  Over a month later, the plaintiff moved the trial court to enlarge the time to substitute the parties pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02(2).  The trial court denied the motion for an enlargement of time.  Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

This action involves the valuation of thirty-two unimproved parcels of real property for taxation purposes. The property owners appealed the values assigned by the Knox County Assessor of Property to the Knox County Board of Equalization, the Tennessee State Board of Equalization, and the Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission before filing a petition for judicial review in the Knox County Chancery Court (“trial court”). The trial court affirmed the respective values of the parcels as found by the Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission. The property owners have appealed the trial court’s determination. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Aristotle once explained that “it is possible to fail in many ways . . . while to succeed is possible only in one way[.]”[1] With some notable exceptions, in order for an issue to be proper on appeal, success depends on the following requirements: (1) that an issue be properly raised in the trial court; and (2) that the issue be properly raised on appeal. Of the three arguments Appellants presented in this appeal, none meets both of the above requirements, though they all fail in different respects. As a result, we affirm the decision of the trial court and award Appellee attorney’s fees for defending against a frivolous appeal.

The defendant, Mario Ramirez Rodriguez, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2007 guilty-pleaded convictions of two counts of rape of a child.  Discerning no error, we affirm the ruling of the trial court but remand the case for the entry of a corrected judgment form for Count 2 that reflects the pretrial jail credits awarded to the defendant.

This appeal involves a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.01(3) summons issue. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding that plaintiff intentionally delayed the issuance of the summons for the complaint in contradiction to Rule 4.01(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Louis Bernard Williams, III, was convicted of felony evidence tampering, a Class C felony, and three respective counts of simple possession of marijuana, cocaine, and hydrocodone, Class A misdemeanors. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-503, -17-408, -17-415, -17-418. On appeal, the pro se Defendant contends that (1) his residence was improperly searched because the search warrant listed the incorrect address; (2) the evidence obtained in that search should be retroactively suppressed because the Defendant was not convicted of the offense alleged in the search warrant; (3) the evidence should have been suppressed because the confidential informant referenced in the search warrant affidavit was not identified and did not testify at trial; and (4) the trial court should have recused itself due to showing bias against the Defendant by denying his motion to suppress and the court’s imposition of an incorrect release eligibility in two previous cases. We affirm.

Defendant, Estevenico Chandler, Jr., pled guilty to aggravated criminal trespass and theft of property and was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of eleven months and twentynine days on unsupervised probation. Following a hearing on a violation of probation warrant, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of the two consecutive sentences in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Benjamin Barton, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent (“DUI per se”), and reckless driving. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with six months to be served in confinement. The Defendant moved for a new trial and for the trial court to reconsider his sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and the motions were denied. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts, that he is entitled to a mistrial due to a discovery violation regarding expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing suspend his sentence due to his health, and that there are errors on the judgment forms. We conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on his convictions but that the sentencing forms are in conflict with the trial court’s oral judgments, and we remand for the trial court to correct the forms.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his young son.  The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that four grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child.  We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant-Appellant, Johnny Summers Cavin, entered guilty pleas to burglary and theft of property valued more than $2,500 but less than $10,000. He also entered guilty pleas to unrelated charges from a separate case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of two years and six months each on supervised probation, to be served consecutively to the sentences he received in an unrelated probation violation case. In a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court ordered him to pay a total of $5,500 in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose restitution and that, alternatively, the trial court erred in setting the restitution amount at $5,500, asserting that the victim’s pecuniary loss was not substantiated by evidence and that the amount is unreasonable based on the Defendant’s income. Upon review, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of the instant case, and the appeal is dismissed.