APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I unenthusiastically agree with the conclusion reached by the majority.  The legal soundness and logical result reached by the post-conviction court effectively delivers a wound to Petitioner by the hand of his out-of-state post-conviction attorney.  Such a wound is a mortal shot to Petitioner’s chances of post-conviction review.

This is a custody case involving two children.2 C.W.H. (Father) and L.A.S. (Mother) modified, by an agreed order, an existing parenting plan for their children, P.H. and V.H. The modification continued Mother as the children's primary residential parent. Soon thereafter, Father learned that Mother worked in Nevada as a prostitute. He filed a motion seeking an emergency temporary custody order and a temporary restraining order. The juvenile court magistrate found that a material change in circumstances had occurred. It changed the identity of the children's primary residential parent from Mother to Father. Mother appealed to the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court (1) confirmed the magistrate's decision and (2) designated Father as the primary residential parent. Mother appealed to this Court. In the first appeal, we held that the trial court's order lacked a “best interest” analysis. As a result, we vacated that order and directed the trial court to (1) make a best interest analysis and thereafter (2) enter a new permanent parenting plan. On remand, the trial court (1) incorporated its past findings, (2) conducted a best interest analysis, and (3) held in Father's favor. Mother again appeals. We reverse because we hold that the evidence preponderates, in part but significantly, against the trial court's factual findings supporting its judgment.

Plaintiff John C. Hoynacki was helping his father, defendant Jerome Hoynacki, wax defendant‟s recreational vehicle (RV). He worked on a ladder in reaching the high places on the RV. The ladder fell with plaintiff on it, causing him injury. He brought this negligence action, alleging that defendant breached his duty to exercise reasonable care in securing and stabilizing the ladder. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, holding that defendant had no legal duty to hold the ladder at the time the plaintiff attempted to “climb down prior to his accident.” We hold that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendant was negligent under the circumstances. We vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan and abandonment by willful failure to visit. The trial court also found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Having reviewed the record as it relates to the grounds for termination and the best interests of the children, we conclude that the trial court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court terminating Father’s parental rights.

This is a Title IV-D child support and paternity case. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s order on paternity and child support. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellant landowners filed a complaint against the City of Clarksville under the theory of implied- in-fact contract, alleging that the City should repair and maintain Appellants’ sewer line and arguing that the broken sewer line is an extension of the City’s public sewer system. Appellants also requested compensatory damages resulting from the back-up of sewage into their home. The City argues that the broken sewer line is a private sewer, for which the City has no responsibility. The City filed a motion for summary judgment. Upon hearing the City’s motion, the trial court found that Appellants’ claim sounded in tort under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act and that the complaint was time barred. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on three grounds: abandonment by willful failure to support, failure to provide a suitable home, and persistence of conditions preventing reunification. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests. After reviewing the record, we conclude that DCS did not meet its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds of failure to provide a suitable home or persistence of conditions. But, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence of willful failure to support and that termination was in the best interests of the children. Therefore, we affirm the termination of parental rights.  

American Honda wanted to establish a new motorcycle dealership in Kingsport, Tennessee and notified the current dealerships of this intent. Jim’s Motorcycle, located in Johnson City, filed a notice of protest with the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Commission, and a hearing was held in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-17-114(c)(20). The Commission determined that the Kingsport area was within the relevant market area of Jim’s Motorcycle and ruled that American Honda was not authorized to establish a new dealership in Kingsport. American Honda appealed, and we affirm the Commission’s ruling.

A water transportation carrier company challenges the assessment of personal property taxes against it by the Board of Equalization for tax years 2008, 2010, and 2011. With respect to tax years 2010 and 2011, we find merit in the carrier’s argument that the record does not establish that the Board provided the carrier with notice sufficient to satisfy due process and, therefore, remand for a determination as to whether the carrier received such notice. As to the Board’s back assessment of the carrier for tax year 2008, we affirm the Board’s assessment.  

An attorney, representing herself, filed suit against a juvenile court judge and clerk after she was prevented from accessing recordings of juvenile court proceedings to which she claimed she was entitled under state law. She sought a writ of mandamus and a judgment declaring the juvenile court local rule, under which the judge denied her requests, invalid. The attorney amended her complaint, joining four clients that she had previously represented before the juvenile court. The judge and clerk then filed a motion to dismiss, which the chancery court granted. We conclude, as did the chancery court, that two of the plaintiffs lacked standing and that state law does not entitle plaintiffs to the recordings. Therefore, we affirm the chancery court’s dismissal of the amended complaint. 

This appeal involves a challenge to fees awarded to a guardian ad litem. The juvenile court ordered the child’s parents to each pay half of the fees awarded. After the juvenile court made its fee award, Mother appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court conducted a de novo hearing and found the fees awarded reasonable. On appeal to this Court, Mother raises several issues with respect to the award, including a lack of notice that fees would be assessed to the parents, improper limits on discovery, unauthorized and unnecessary actions by the guardian ad litem, and violations of Supreme Court Rules. The guardian ad litem argues Mother’s appeal to the circuit court was untimely and requests that we vacate the decision of the circuit court and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal. We do not find the appeal to the circuit court to be untimely, but we do find the award of fees to the guardian ad litem appropriate. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

This case began as a petition for dependency and neglect filed in juvenile court by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The juvenile court found the child to be dependent and neglected, and Mother and Father appealed to the circuit court. A discovery dispute arose when their attorney requested records from a court appointed special advocate volunteer. In connection with the dispute, the parents’ attorney filed a petition for civil contempt and a petition for criminal contempt against the volunteer. The circuit court did not grant either petition, and in response, the non-profit organization with which the volunteer was affiliated filed motions for sanctions against the attorney under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court granted the non-profit’s motions finding, among other reasons, that both petitions were filed for improper purposes. Mother and Father appeal the circuit court’s dismissal of their criminal contempt petition and the court’s decision to impose sanctions against their attorney. Because we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the criminal contempt petition or in imposing sanctions against the attorney, we affirm. 

Appellant was injured while attempting to leave the defendant hospital against medical advice. Appellant appeals the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital, concluding that the hospital owed no duty to prevent Appellant from leaving the hospital. Discerning no error, we affirm.  

This appeal concerns premises liability in a slip and fall case. Vicki Matherne and Rodney Matherne ("Plaintiffs") sued Jerry West and Carolyn West ("the Wests"), owners of a vacation cabin rented by the Mathernes, and American Patriot Getaways ("APG"), which managed the cabin, (collectively, "Defendants") after Mrs. Matherne injured herself falling off an elevated parking level at the cabin. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court for Sevier County ("the Trial Court") granted Defendants‘ motion, finding that any hazardous condition was open and obvious and that Mrs. Matherne was at least 50% at fault. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We hold that there are genuine disputed issues of material fact regarding what Defendants could or should have done to prevent the risk of a fall from the elevated parking level and whether Mrs. Matherne was at least 50% at fault. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in granting Defendants‘ motion for summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings.

The defendant, Vanessa Renee Pinegar, was convicted of one count of facilitation of delivering 0.5 or more grams of cocaine within a school zone and two counts of attempted delivery of 0.5 or more grams of cocaine within a school zone.  The trial court merged her attempted delivery convictions and imposed an effective sentence of nine years and a fine of $2000.  The defendant appeals her convictions, challenging the denial of her motion to sever the trial of the defendants, certain evidentiary rulings, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and her sentence.  Upon review, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

The Petitioner, Richard Earl Madkins, Jr., filed a petition in the Hardeman County Circuit Court seeking habeas corpus relief from his especially aggravated robbery conviction and resulting twenty-five-year sentence, alleging that his sentence had expired and that he was being imprisoned for a conviction that was overturned by our supreme court. The habeas corpus court denied relief without a hearing, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The defendant, Todd Dewayne Scruggs, was convicted of selling and delivering heroin and possessing drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years.  The defendant appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence.  Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On June 17, 2011, a Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant, Jerry Brandon Phifer, for twelve crimes against five different victims.  The defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary (Count 11) and one count of theft of property greater than $1000 (Count 12) as charged in the original twelve-count indictment.  The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirteen years for aggravated robbery and twelve years for theft of property to be served consecutively.  On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence for aggravated robbery from the minimum of ten years to thirteen years.  The defendant also argues the trial court improperly ordered his sentences for Counts 11 and 12 to run consecutively.  After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, George Prince Watkins, pleaded guilty to burglary in 1989 and was given a probationary sentence. The Defendant violated his probation, and while on bond for his probation violation, he committed four new offenses, to all of which he subsequently pleaded guilty. The trial court ordered concurrent sentencing for all of the convictions. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, contending that his sentence was illegal. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appealed. This Court held that the Defendant had presented a colorable claim and remanded the case to the trial court for Rule 36.1 proceedings. State v. George Prince Watkins, No. W2014-02393-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 6145899, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 15, 2015), no perm. app. filed. The Defendant moved forward with his Rule 36.1 motion, and the trial court again summarily dismissed the Defendant’s motion finding that he failed to state a colorable claim since his sentences were expired and citing State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 211 (Tenn. 2015), which was released in December 2015. Based upon Brown, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In 2012, the Defendant, Julie Fuller-Cole, pleaded guilty in Shelby County to theft over $10,000. The trial court sentenced her to ten years of incarceration to run consecutively to a probation sentence from a prior Fayette County conviction. The Fayette County probation sentence was later revoked. In 2015, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The Defendant asserted that the Shelby County sentence was illegal because it was aligned consecutively to the Fayette County sentence and because the Fayette County sentence was not revoked until after she was sentenced in Shelby County. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that there was nothing illegal about the alignment of the sentences. On appeal, the Defendant maintains that her sentence is illegal and that the sentences should be run concurrently. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In this post-divorce proceeding, ex-husband filed a petition for civil contempt to compel ex-wife to allow him to retrieve certain items of personal property awarded to him in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. The trial court entered an order holding ex-wife in civil contempt for her failure to turn over certain items. We have reviewed the record and have determined that the trial court erred in finding ex-husband was entitled to a boat trailer that was not enumerated in the property list; however, we affirm the trial court’s finding of civil contempt.     

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s ruling: (1) dismissing their claims against a church; (2) dismissing the plaintiff-daughter’s claim against the remaining individual defendant for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) granting the remaining individual defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff-father’s claim of assault. With regard to the dismissal of the claims against the church, we conclude that Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely, and we therefore dismiss their appeal concerning the claims against the church for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We dismiss the remainder of Appellants’ appeal because of profound deficiencies in Appellants’ brief to this Court.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for conversion of property. The property owners, Appellees, received a judgment of $24,999.99 in general sessions court, and Appellants filed an appeal to the circuit court. At the jury trial, jurors awarded Appellees a verdict of $40,000.00. Appellants appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.