APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Potter’s Home Center appeals the trial court’s summary judgment which dismissed its suit to enforce a materialman’s lien against Defendants/Appellees Wilburn R. Viles, Sr., and Mildred E. Viles. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that Potter’s failed to comply with the applicable notice requirements of the mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien statutes.

We granted interlocutory review in this death penalty case to
determine whether the trial court’s orders compelling the defendant to undergo a
mental examination in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c), and requiring
disclosure to the prosecution of material related to the examination, violated the
right to counsel or the right against self-incrimination under the United States or
Tennessee Constitutions.

A jury convicted the defendant, Henry Lee Martin, of especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment and fined five thousand dollars. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. We granted review to determine whether Tenn. R. Evid., Rule 613(b) mandates that a foundation be laid prior to the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement. We hold that extrinsic evidence remains inadmissible until: (1) the witness is asked whether the witness made the prior inconsistent statement; and (2) the witness denies or equivocates as to having made the prior inconsistent statement.

Appellant has filed a petition to rehear which, after due consideration is respectfully denied.

This is a divorce case. Defendant-appellant Daniel Hoover appeals the trial court’s division of marital property and asserts that the land containing the parties marital home was improperly classified as wife’s separate property. Plaintiff-appellee Sidney Hoover asserts that the trial court erred in failing to award her one-half of Husband’s retirement account.

I concur with the court’s opinion for two reasons. First, the expenses associated with the upkeep of the Gail Drive house were more than off-set by the rental income from the house. Second, the increase in the value of the house was due, not to Mr. Barker’s contributions to the maintenance of the house which were de minimis, but to the appreciation in the value of real property in general.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The minor child in question is Joel Kristen Sipe, born September 7, 1995 to Laurel Sipe (“Mother”) and Bruce Sipe (“Father”). The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents as to this child after finding on clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed to do so. Both parents have appealed. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing of Plaintiff/Appellant City of Murfreesboro, the petition is denied.

Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company appeals the trial court’s orders of
possession entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Town of Collierville in two eminent domain
cases. In entering its orders of possession, the trial court ruled that, as a matter of law, the
Town of Collierville had the right to condemn easements across Norfolk Southern’s railroad
track for the purpose of constructing two grade crossings and that Norfolk Southern was
not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the right-to-take issue. For the reasons hereinafter
stated, we reverse the trial court’s orders of possession and remand for further
proceedings.

The plaintiff, Bobby Blackmon, has appealed from a judgment reading as follows: The Motion to Set Pretrial Management Conference is overruled. This order shall be considered as a final judgment disposing of any claim, right or liability of any party as contemplated by T.R.A.P. Rule 3(a). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1996.

In this divorce case, the husband Van Adrian Barker has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court declaring the parties to be divorced under TCA § 36-4-129, and dividing the marital estate. The appellant presents only the following issue:

I.    Whether the Chancellor erred in finding that the husband did not substantially contribute to the appreciation of the rental property owned by the wife, thereby denying the husband a share in that appreciation.

Following the denial of their motion to suppress evidence, the Defendants, Gary Raines and Debra Raines ple d guilty in the Circuit Court of Cheatham County to possession of marijuana for resale and possession of drug paraphernalia, and Defendant Jerry Raines pled guilty to simple possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. In their pleas, Defendants reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s d enial of their motion to suppress as a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules 11(e) and 37(b)(2)(I) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the certified question is: “Whether or not the initial entry upon the premises and the subsequent consent search was legal.” We affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified to correct an apparent clerical error.

On May 17, 1994, a Davidson County jury found Appellant, William F. Hegger, guilty of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, first offense. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range I standard offender to eleven months and twenty-nine d ays incarceration (all but ten days suspended), imposed a two-hundred and fifty dollar fine, ordered Appellant to attend alcohol treatment school, and suspended Appellant’s driver’s license for a period of one year. Appellant was further ordered to perform two hundred hours of public service work. On February 22, 1996, following a hearing upon Appellant’s motion, the trial court modified Appellant’s sentence, waiving the fine and public service work. The trial court found that Appellant had completed his jail time and the one year suspension of his license. Appellant filed a timely notice of app eal, raising several issues, namely:

1) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus HGN) test;

2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Lt. Louise Kelton;
3) whether the evidence was sufficien t to suppo rt the jury verdict;
4) whether the defense counsel provided effective assistance of counsel.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt.