APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The husband in this divorce case failed to answer the wife’s complaint for legal separation or her amended complaint for divorce. The trial court awarded the wife a divorce, entered a permanent parenting plan, and divided the marital estate. The husband moved to set aside the judgment, and the trial court denied his motion. The husband appeals, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

In this termination of parental rights case, the child was placed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) because the child’s parents were incarcerated. The mother’s parental rights were later terminated based upon the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence regarding two statutory grounds: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent and (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A former county commissioner appeals the trial court’s decision finding him liable for defamatory statements made about a private individual during a county legislative meeting. Following a thorough review of the record, we reverse.

Appellants, purchasers of a residential property, filed an action against Appellees, sellers and owners of the residential construction company that built the subject property, for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) and intentional misrepresentation for failure to disclose water damage and substandard repairs to the property. Appellants also sued a termite inspection company for negligently failing to disclose termite damage to the property. Appellants settled with the termite company for $45,000.00 but proceeded to trial against Appellees. Although the trial court found that Appellees intentionally misrepresented the condition of the property to Appellants, it found that Appellants were not “consumers” under the TCPA, and that the Act did not apply to this real estate transaction. The trial court awarded Appellants a $43,811.00 judgment against Appellees, for intentionally failing to disclose the water damage to the property, but found that Appellants had been fully compensated for their loss from the settlement with the termite company. As such, Appellants were not entitled to further compensatory damages from Appellees. We conclude the trial court erred in finding that Appellants were not consumers under the Act and that the TCPA was not applicable to this real estate transaction. We remand for a determination of whether Appellees violated the Act, and, if so, whether Appellants are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and treble damages. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

The petitioner, Earley Story, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Shelby County Criminal Court, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because newly discovered evidence exists which is material to his case. After our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Terrell Jackson, of two counts of aggravated rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years in confinement at 100%. On appeal, the defendant contends the statute of limitations was not tolled during the period of time he was involuntarily residing in Louisiana, and therefore, his prosecution was barred. The defendant also argues the State delayed the testing of the victim’s rape kit to obtain a tactical advantage. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Steven Skinner, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking relief from his two convictions for first degree premeditated murder and his consecutive life sentences. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed, not entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations, and otherwise nonmeritorious. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the dismissal. 

A woman against whom the trial court granted an order of protection appeals the order of protection. The trial court granted the order based upon its finding that the woman, a former girlfriend of the petitioner, threatened the petitioner and his wife in a series of videos. Finding no error, we affirm.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Terrance Lawrence, a.k.a. Terence Lawrence, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, domestic assault, driving on a suspended driver’s license, and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed an effective sixty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the victim and the investigating officer; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to testify regarding his mental health issues; (3) the trial court erred in denying his request for a mistrial; and (4) he is entitled to a new trial due to cumulative error. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A vocational teacher sued his former employer, a county department of education, alleging that the department’s intentional failure to remediate mold contamination at the high school where he taught caused him to suffer long-term detrimental health effects and emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the teacher’s claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), finding that the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-101 et seq., provided the exclusive remedy for the acts alleged in the complaint and that the allegations therein failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the statutory framework. Upon our review of the pleadings, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

The Petitioner, Colin D. Savage, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her children on the grounds of (1) abandonment by willful failure to visit, (2) abandonment by willful failure to support, and (3) persistence of conditions. The trial court also found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Although we reverse one of the termination grounds, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports a finding of abandonment by willful failure to support and a finding of persistence of conditions. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the termination of the mother’s rights is in the best interest of the children.

Plaintiff-Appellant John Pearson appeals the decision of the Court of Workers’ Compensation declining to award him benefits for a spinal cord injury allegedly sustained during the course and scope of his employment. The trial court held that Mr. Pearson’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, alternatively, that he had failed to prove that his job installing streetlights was the actual and proximate cause of his injury. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because we conclude that Mr. Pearson filed his petition more than one year after he discovered his injury, the statute of limitations bars his claim. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Charles Griffin, of first degree felony murder for a shooting committed during the course of a robbery. The Defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree felony murder, that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce as evidence a photograph of the victim taken during the victim’s lifetime, and that the court erred in denying his motion for DNA testing and a continuance. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Colton Davon Hatchett, of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine and the delivery of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifteen years as a Range II, multiple offender for each conviction, merged the convictions, and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence consecutively to his sentence for a prior conviction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves several raised issues surrounding the ownership of the Hill Boren, PC law firm. Because the record transmitted to us on appeal evidences the lack of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a health care liability action for failure to comply with a pre-suit notice content requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-29-121(a)(2). The trial court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant doctors and hospital with medical authorization forms that would permit pre-suit investigation of his claims. The plaintiff contends the dismissal was unwarranted because the medical authorizations substantially complied with the statute and the defendants already had the relevant records. The defendants argue that the forms were invalid because they lacked several required elements, including a description of the purpose for which the records could be disclosed and used. We affirm.

The Defendants, John Curtis Perry, Sr., and Ashley Nicole Hankins, appeal their convictions for three counts of felony murder for which they were sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendants, either individually or collectively, argue that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in granting and denying various requests to continue the trial; (3) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior bad acts; (4) the trial court erred in limiting the crossexamination of a witness; (5) the trial court erred in excluding a co-defendant’s statement; (6) the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the concealment and destruction of evidence; (7) the prosecutor made improper comments during rebuttal closing arguments; and (8) cumulative error warrants relief. Upon reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for entry of corrected judgments reflecting merger of the felony murder convictions into one conviction for each of the Defendants.

The defendant, Ricky L. Helmick, Jr., appeals his Hamblen County Criminal Court jury convictions of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but not more than $2,500 and aggravated kidnapping to facilitate theft, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Respectfully, I must dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s order granting visitation to the grandfather in this case. At the outset, I emphasize that the scope of this appeal is very narrow. On appeal, Mother raised only the issues of whether she had opposed visitation and whether Grandfather had proven that severance of the relationship with the child would occasion substantial harm to the child.

A grandfather filed a petition to obtain visitation with his grandchild. The trial court granted the petitioner relief, and the child’s mother appeals. The grandfather did not allege, and the proof did not establish, that the mother had opposed or severely reduced the grandfather’s visitation before the petition was filed. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case.

The Petitioner, Kevin L. French, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, he argues that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the State committed a Brady violation; and (4) he is actually innocent. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Dickson County Grand Jury charged Defendant, Robert E. Huse, with aggravated child abuse and first degree felony murder in connection with the death of his infant son, G.S. Prior to trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce prior bad act evidence that Defendant abused another child four years before the victim’s death. Against Defendant’s repeated objections, the trial court allowed the admission of the prior bad act evidence for the purposes of establishing intent, identity, and common scheme or plan. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to life for first degree felony murder and to a concurrent term of fifteen years for aggravated child abuse. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting the prior bad act evidence, which prejudiced him. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the prior bad act evidence and that this error prejudiced Defendant. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

A father challenges the trial court’s decision terminating his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. He further asserts that the trial court erred in finding that termination of his rights is in the child’s best interest. After reviewing the record on appeal, we have concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s decision in all respects.

This case involves a company’s claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses for the alleged breach of a non-compete agreement by its former employee. After a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court determined that the former employee breached the agreement and granted the company a temporary injunction. The court did not consolidate the hearing on the merits under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04(7). Later, the claims were voluntarily dismissed, and the trial court awarded the company attorneys’ fees and expenses under the “Remedies” section of the parties’ agreement. The former employee appealed the trial court’s decision to grant the company attorneys’ fees and expenses. We reverse the trial court’s award and remand.