APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the interpretation and construction of a trust agreement. John Marion Reed and his wife Willie Kate Reed, in the process of their estate planning, executed a revocable living trust agreement. They conveyed approximately 204.61 acres of real property to the trust. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Reed died testate. The trust was the sole residual beneficiary of his will. Mrs. Reed, the successor trustee, distributed all of the real estate in the trust to herself by way of a quitclaim deed. She then terminated the trust. Bobby Reed, her son and a beneficiary of the trust, filed this action alleging that Mrs. Reed exceeded her authority under the terms of the trust agreement. He asked the trial court to order an accounting of the assets of the trust that had been distributed by Mrs. Reed since her husband’s death. He sought the return to the trust of the assets wrongfully distributed. The trial court held that Mrs. Reed did not have the authority to transfer all of the real estate in the trust. Accordingly, the court voided the quitclaim deed, and granted the requested relief of Bobby Reed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This case involves the intent of Stephanie Diane Ellerman, formerly Bramlett, (mother) to relocate with the parties’ minor child. Mother, the primary residential parent, seeks to move from Cleveland, Tennessee to Greenville, Tennessee, a distance of approximately 160 miles. She sent notice to Michael Lee Bramlett (father) of her intent to relocate. The notice indicated that mother intended to relocate because she had remarried and intended to move into her husband’s residence. Father responded with a petition objecting to the relocation. The court entered an order allowing mother to move, finding that the move has a reasonable purpose and is not vindictive or meant to interfere with father’s coparenting time. Father appeals. We affirm. We decline mother’s request for attorney’s fees and expenses at the trial court level. In the exercise of our discretion, we do award to mother her reasonable fees and expenses on appeal.

The petitioner, Jose A. Rivas, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his 2005 Hancock County Criminal Court guiltypleaded convictions of facilitation of first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns a release of liability. Leslie Johansen (“Johansen”) was a passenger in an ATV accident that resulted in the death of the driver, Lee Martin Sharber. Johansen sued Leon Sharber, Personal Representative of Lee Martin Sharber’s Estate, in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County (“the Trial Court”) alleging negligence. Johansen’s uninsured motorist carrier, GEICO Casualty Company (“GEICO”), was joined as a defendant. While the tort action was underway and without GEICO’s approval, Johansen executed a release of claim regarding the Personal Representative which was filed in the Probate Court for Rutherford County (“the Probate Court”). GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as a result of the release, Johansen forfeited any recovery rights she had against GEICO. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to GEICO. Johansen appealed. We hold that the release executed by Johansen served to release GEICO from any liability arising from Johansen’s personal injury claim stemming from the ATV accident. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The Appellant, Matthew Bruce Howard, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court, arguing that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence because he abused a position of private trust. Upon review, we agree that the trial court erred by finding that the Appellant abused a position of private trust, but we nevertheless affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Ramiro R. Ibarra, pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular homicide and three counts of vehicular assault. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years and ordered that he serve 364 days in confinement and the remainder of his sentence on Community Corrections. The Defendant’s probation officer alleged that the Defendant violated his probation and, at a hearing, the Defendant admitted that he violated the conditions of his probation. The trial court revoked his probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Following a bench trial in the Criminal Court for Davidson County, the Defendant, Darrell Wayne Bumpas, was convicted of forgery over $1,000; criminal simulation over $1,000; theft of property over $1,000; and two counts of identity theft. For these offenses, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twelve years to serve in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a photocopy of the fraudulent check and still photographs from a bank security camera. He argues that the State failed to properly authenticate the evidence under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 901 and 902. The Defendant also asserts that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Stephan Richardson, was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement because the “officers unreasonably delayed booking [him] in order to” secure his statement and because his statement was involuntarily given; (2) his conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony is invalid because the indictment failed to specify the predicate dangerous felony; and (3) the trial court erred by refusing to sever or bifurcate the unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon offense from the other three counts, thereby, preventing him from receiving a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. However, because the jury was charged with a nonexistent crime regarding the employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony conviction, we reverse that conviction and remand that count for a new trial.

The tenant of office building sued the landlord, a limited liability company, and its two owners for various causes of action arising out of his eviction. Following a nine-day trial the court held that the tenant had been wrongfully evicted and his property converted, and awarded the tenant nominal damages of $1.00 for the eviction, $23,130.00 for conversion of his personal property located in the building, $5,000.00 in punitive damages, costs of $2,395.00 and pre-judgment interest of $6,224.27. The tenant appeals the awards of damages and costs, and contends that interest should be 10 percent rather than the 5.5 percent awarded. The landlord contends that the holding that the tenant was wrongfully evicted should be reversed, that the tenant was not entitled to an award of damages for conversion, and that the individual owners should not be held liable for the damage awards. Upon a thorough review of the record, we modify the award of damages for conversion of the tenant’s property and remand the case for the court to award interest from the date the property was converted; we affirm the decision to award punitive damages, vacate the amount of damages, and remand for the court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to the appropriate factors and enter judgment accordingly; in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.  

The plaintiff in a health care liability action appeals the dismissal of her claim on the basis of the expiration of the statute of limitations and the failure to provide pre-suit notice compliant with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(3)(B). Because the undisputed facts in the record fail to establish that decedent was aware of the alleged misdiagnosis prior to his death, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on this issue. We also determine that the trial court failed to apply the appropriate standard or adequately explain its decision regarding the plaintiff’s alleged non-compliance with section 29-26- 121(a)(3)(B). We therefore vacate the dismissal of the complaint on this basis and remand for reconsideration in light of the appropriate standard. Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

The Defendant, Larry Sylvester Woods, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s revocation of probation for his Range I, two-year sentence for burglary of a business, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-14-402 (2014). He contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence, rather than ordering him to participate in a drug treatment program. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Barbara E. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to the minor children Mack E., Hannah E., Amber E., Donnica B. and Barbara Jean B. (collectively “the Children”). Donald B. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor children Donnica B. and Barbara Jean B. We find and hold that the State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) proved by clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) to terminate both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and that it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interests. We, therefore, affirm the June 28, 2017 order of the Juvenile Court for Jefferson County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Children.

The Petitioner, Herman McKinley, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to preserve his right to allocution at the sentencing hearing and by failing to ask the trial court to recuse itself because it signed the Petitioner’s arrest warrant. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Tipton County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Dwight Michael Alston, of first degree premeditated murder, and he received a life sentence. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because it fails to show he premeditated the killing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Timothy Ware, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated sexual battery. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 16 years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which Petitioner alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

Louis Garassino (“Employee”) sustained a compensable lower back injury in the course of his work as a truck driver for Western Express (“Employer”). After a compensation hearing, the trial court awarded benefits to Employee. The order also awarded discretionary costs, in an unspecified amount. The parties disagreed over the issue. Employee filed a motion to award discretionary costs, including the fees of his examining doctor for reviewing records and conducting the examination. The trial court awarded those fees. Employer appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, which reversed the trial court as to the award of those two items. Employee has appealed, and the appeal has been assigned to this Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment.  

Quinton Clovis (“Plaintiff”) appeals the February 7, 2017 order of the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) ordering, inter alia, that the Tennessee Department of Human Services (“the Department”) reinstate Plaintiff’s food stamp benefits. We find and hold that Plaintiff is not an aggrieved party, and thus, lacks standing to appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.

Maurice Johnson (“the Petitioner”) appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of first degree felony murder, for which he was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to: (1) adequately investigate potential witnesses; (2) adequately investigate two witnesses who testified at trial; (3) prepare the Petitioner for testimony; (4) object to irrelevant and prejudicial evidence relating to the Petitioner’s drug dealing and “the Sweetwater fight”; (5) question co-defendant Twanna Blair about her statement to police that the perpetrators were white men; and (6) adequately protect the Petitioner’s appellate rights. The Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief based on these claims individually and based on the cumulative effect of these errors. The Petitioner additionally asserts that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief “in the face of structural error.” Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

This appeal involves a contentious continuing dispute over visitation with the parties’ young daughter. After numerous hearings, the trial court reluctantly continued limited structured visitation to the mother. The principal issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court’s rulings were in the best interests of the child. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous record before us, we find that the evidence supports the parenting plan determination and other rulings made by the court.

This post-divorce action primarily involves a provision in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) concerning disposition of the marital residence. The parties were divorced in 2011. The wife filed a petition in March 2015, seeking, inter alia, to enforce the divorce decree and MDA by obtaining an order requiring the husband to vacate the marital residence so that she could reside there with the parties’ minor child and her three foster children. The MDA provides that the wife is to retain sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence until it is sold while the husband is to deposit one-half of the monthly mortgage payment into the wife’s personal checking account each month “in lieu of” spousal support. The MDA also provides that the marital residence would not be placed on the market for sale until January 1, 2013, but it does not supply a deadline by which the parties would have to place the home on the market. At the time that the wife commenced this action, the wife had vacated the home, and the husband had been residing there for approximately one year. Following a bench trial conducted in May 2016, the trial court granted the wife’s petition to enforce the MDA, entering an order directing the husband to vacate the marital residence immediately and to make needed repairs to the home. The court also found that a purported post-divorce oral agreement between the parties for the husband to purchase the wife’s share of the marital residence had not constituted a valid contract. Crediting the husband with $12,000.00 he had paid to the wife toward purchase of the marital residence as payment toward a spousal support arrearage, the trial court ordered the husband to pay additional spousal support arrears at a rate of $300.00 per month and to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees. Specifically at issue on appeal is a provision the trial court included in the order, directing that the wife, the parties’ minor child, and the wife’s three foster children could remain in the marital residence until the parties’ minor child, who was then eleven years of age, graduated from high school or became otherwise emancipated. Also finding that the husband had behaved in a harassing and intimidating manner toward the wife, the trial court granted the wife’s request for a restraining order in part, limiting the number of times each day the husband could text the wife and his minor child. Seeking to have the provision at issue set aside, the husband filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the trial court denied. The husband has appealed. Having determined that the trial court’s order impermissibly modified the MDA by creating an extended timeframe for sale of the marital residence not originally contemplated by the parties, we vacate the provision in the judgment allowing the wife to remain in the residence until the parties’ minor child graduates from high school or is otherwise emancipated. Inasmuch as the husband has raised this sole issue on appeal, we expressly do not disturb the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.      

The Appellant, Ricardo Davidson, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

Plaintiff, who fell in a puddle of water on property adjacent to a water tower located on property owned by defendant, a governmental entity, brought suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging that the water that caused him to fall was caused by drainage from the water tower on defendant’s property. Following a trial, the court held that there was no dangerous or defective condition in the water tower, such that it was foreseeable that a person would be injured, and that the defendant had no actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition that caused plaintiff to fall; as a consequence the Governmental Tort Liability Act did not operate to remove immunity. The court also held that plaintiff and the owner of the property where plaintiff fell were each at least 50 per cent at fault and, therefore, plaintiff could not recover. Plaintiff appeals; discerning no error we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff parents of infant who died in child birth appeal a jury verdict in favor of the medical provider defendants. During voir dire, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ request for additional peremptory challenges under Tennessee Code Annotated section 22-3-104(b) on the basis that Plaintiffs were bringing their claim on behalf of the decedent infant. Based upon the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2017), we conclude that the trial court erred in treating Plaintiffs as a single “party plaintiff” and that Plaintiffs were entitled to eight peremptory challenges under the statute at issue. We also hold that under Tuggle v. Allright Parking Sys., Inc., 922 S.W.2d 107 (Tenn. 1996), the trial court’s error resulted in prejudice to the judicial process that necessitates a new trial. All other issues are pretermitted. Reversed and remanded.

Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights and to allow Stepfather to adopt the minor child. Following a hearing, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights, finding that Father abandoned his child by willful failure to visit and support, and that Father failed to establish paternity of the child. The trial court also found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Father timely appealed. After review, we have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support two of the three grounds for termination, and to support the trial court’s conclusion that terminating Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Thus, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights.