APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted permission to appeal in this healthcare liability action to reconsider the summary judgment standard adopted in Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008). The Court of Appeals concluded that the Hannan standard requires reversal of the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendants on certain of the plaintiffs’ claims. We hereby overrule Hannan and return to a summary judgment standard consistent with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We hold, therefore, that a moving party may satisfy its initial burden of production and shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party by demonstrating that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage to establish the nonmoving party’s claim or defense. Applying our holding to the record in this case, we conclude that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all the plaintiffs’ claims at issue in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court for entry of summary judgment on these issues and for any other proceedings that may be necessary.

I was not serving on the Supreme Court in 2008 when Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008) was argued. Had I participated in the Hannan decision, I would have joined in the majority opinion. However, after observing the application of the unique Hannan standard over the past seven years, I conclude that the Hannan standard is unworkable and should be replaced. Although it is often easier to maintain the status quo rather than admit that a mistake was made, we do not have this option. We must change course when we realize we are headed in the wrong direction. 

I concur in all respects with the excellent opinion in this case authored by Justice Clark. I write separately solely to address from a somewhat different perspective some of the points raised by the dissent. The dissent claims that Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008) simply “refined” the summary judgment standard adopted by this Court dating back to 1993 in Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). Based in part upon my first-hand experiences in the trenches as a trial court judge, I beg to differ.

In this appeal, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, breach of contract by the insurance carrier. Pursuant to settled law in this state, the plaintiff had one year plus sixty days to institute suit on the policy. This action was filed one year and 134 days after the fire loss. The trial court found the lawsuit was not timely filed. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Marvin Matthews, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Maurice Currie, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He asserts that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his motion because Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure does not place a time limit on the filing of a claim and the court improperly treated the motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After review, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This post-divorce case involves issues concerning reimbursement for the parties’ children’s uncovered medical expenses and an award of attorney’s fees in favor of Mother. Father/Appellant contends that he is not responsible for the uncovered medical expenses on grounds that Mother/Appellee failed to timely send him copies of the bills as required under the permanent parenting plan. Father also contests the award of attorney’s fees and costs. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.  

The defendant, Stacey Philander Baldon, appeals the summary denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence. Because the petitioner stated a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1, which the State concedes, the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion. In consequence, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff and his former wife purchased a house together in 2002. The former wife moved out of the house with all of her belongings in 2009, and the house suffered damage from a fire in 2010. The former wife was a named insured on the house, and each of the insurance checks issued to cover property loss and living expenses was made payable to both Plaintiff and his former wife. The president of the bank that held a mortgage on the house had a separate business relationship with the former wife. According to Plaintiff, the bank president informed him that he could not have any of the insurance proceeds unless one-half was given to the former wife, which proceeds were used to pay down the former wife’s separate and unrelated loan. The bank ultimately foreclosed on the house because the loan became delinquent. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the bank and president asserting conversion, wrongful foreclosure, and other related causes of action. The bank and the president filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file his opposition within the time prescribed by the procedural rules, and the trial court granted the bank and the president’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in some respects and reverse the judgment in other respects. Plaintiff’s deposition transcript that the trial court considered in ruling on the motion for summary judgment raised genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment on several of the causes of action alleged.  

The appellant, Casey Dupra Drennon, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and received a seven-year sentence with credit for 149 days already served and the remainder on supervised probation.  On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering that he serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement.  Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with the results of the majority, but from a somewhat different view. I agree the arrival of Rule 36.1 has produced an anathema. I further agree that the trial court misapprehended Defendant’s claim as one that would result in permissive sentence alignment.

The Appellant, Scott Edward Robins, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to the initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Appellant to eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Eleven years after he entered a guilty plea to second degree murder, the Petitioner, Jimmy Ray King, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence.  The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations, which was granted by the coram nobis court.  In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether due process required tolling of the statute of limitations.  Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

The Defendant-Appellant, Antoine Tony Blugh, was charged by presentment in count 1 of violating the Sex Offender Registration Act by establishing a residence within 1000 feet of a public park, in count 2 of violating the Sex Offender Registration Act by failing to timely register within forty-eight hours of changing his residence, in count 3 of an enhanced violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act by establishing a residence within 1000 feet of a public park after already having been convicted of a prior sex offender registry violation, and in count 4 of an enhanced violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act by failing to timely register after already having been convicted of a prior sex offender registry violation, all of which were Class E felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 40-39-211, -208. Prior to trial, Blugh filed a motion to dismiss the presentment, which the court denied. At trial, the jury acquitted Blugh in counts 1 and 3 but convicted him of count 2, and, following the second part of the bifurcated trial, convicted him of the enhanced violation in count 4. After merging count 2 with count 4, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years and six months, with a mandatory minimum sentence length of 180 days‟ imprisonment. See id. § 40-39-208(d). On appeal, Blugh argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the presentment; (2) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to the applicable law regarding his status as a sexual offender in Tennessee; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was a fatal variance between the crimes alleged in the presentment and the evidence presented at trial. Upon review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Bruce Turner, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 conviction for rape of a child and his twenty-five-year sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se Petitioner, Christopher Michael Hooten, appeals as of right from the Maury County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his petition presented a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and, therefore, that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition.  The State concedes that the Petitioner presented a colorable claim for relief.  Following our review, we agree with the parties and remand for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

This is a divorce case. Wife/Appellant appeals the trial court’s award of transitional alimony in the amount of $1,625.00 per month for three years. Because the record contains neither a transcript of the proceedings, nor a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 statement of evidence, we have no basis on which to review the ruling of the trial court. Affirmed and remanded.

The petitioner, Junior P. Samuel, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his 2015 petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2009 convictions of rape and sexual battery by an authority figure.  Because the petition was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations, because this is the petitioner’s second successive petition for post-conviction relief, and because the petitioner failed to prove a statutory exception to the timely filing or a due process tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is the second appeal from a finding of criminal contempt. Appellant and his wife originally filed a petition to have the Appellees’ daughter adjudicated dependent and neglected. The trial court entered an order, in which the parties could not contact each other or each other’s families. Appellant made contact with Appellees’ daughters on multiple occasions via text message and once in person. The Appellees filed a petition for contempt against Appellant, and the trial court found the Appellant guilty of four counts of criminal contempt and sentenced Appellant to the maximum punishment allowed for each contempt conviction with the sentences to run consecutively. On the first appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions of criminal contempt but vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to resentence the Appellant and explain its reasons for the sentence it imposed. On remand, the trial court found the Appellant guilty of twenty eight counts of criminal contempt. The trial court imposed twenty-four hour sentences for each count except one, for which the trial court imposed a five-day sentence. Appellant appeals from the convictions, the sentence, and the trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Mark Winslow brought suit against Charles Fleischmann and his campaign advertising consultant, John Saltsman, to recover for allegedly false and defamatory statements made in the course of Mr. Fleishman’s campaign for election to the United States Congress, and related contractual claims. Mr. Fleishman and Mr. Saltsman moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the statements were not false or capable of defamatory meaning or published with actual malice, and that they took no action to induce a breach of contract or otherwise interfere with the relationship between Mr. Winslow and the Tennessee Republican Party. Mr. Winslow did not contest the grant of summary judgment on the contract claims; the trial court granted the motion as to the defamation and false light claims, holding that there was no evidence from which to infer malice, that the statements were not defamatory or capable of a defamatory meaning, and that any statements upon which the action was based which related to Mr. Winslow were either true or substantially true and, therefore, not actionable. Mr. Winslow appeals. Because Mr. Fleishman and Mr. Saltsman demonstrated that the undisputed facts negate the element of actual malice which is essential to the defamation and false light claims, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. 

The defendant, Edward Sample, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his other crimes, that the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial, and that he was improperly fingerprinted during trial without counsel present. Following our review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of other crimes, and we reverse the defendant’s convictions and remand for a new trial.

Pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant, Jon Michael Johnson, who pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”), appeals two related certified questions of law relative to the validity of the instrument used to measure his blood alcohol level following his arrest.  Because neither of the certified questions presented is dispositive of the defendant’s case, the appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner, Mathew Dixon, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. He subsequently filed both a direct appeal and a petition for post-conviction relief in his case. He has now filed the instant petition to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging a later-arising claim. Specifically, he contends that he subsequently learned that a witness at trial against him had an agreement with the prosecution. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in not finding that the statute of limitations should be tolled. Following review of the record, we conclude we are without jurisdiction to review the challenged issue. Accordingly, the summary dismissal is affirmed.

We granted this appeal to determine whether the courts below erred in concluding that the mother must be afforded relief from a void default judgment terminating her parental rights even though she did not seek relief from the void judgment under Rule 60.02(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure until more than eight years after it was entered. We agree with the courts below that the default judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction and also conclude that the reasonable time filing requirement of Rule 60.02 does not apply to petitions seeking relief from void judgments under Rule 60.02(3). Nevertheless, we hold that relief from a void judgment should be denied if the following exceptional circumstances exist: “(1) [t]he party seeking relief, after having had actual notice of the judgment, manifested an intention to treat the judgment as valid; and (2) [g]ranting the relief would impair another person’s substantial interest of reliance on the judgment.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 66 (1982). We hold that the record has not been sufficiently developed to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals and remand for the trial court to determine, after a hearing, whether exceptional circumstances justify denying relief in this case.

The Oak Ridge City Court found the manager of three apartment buildings liable for several violations of the local building code. The manager appealed to the circuit court, and the City moved to amend the cause to add the purported owner of the properties as a defendant. The case proceeded to trial. After the City closed its proof, the trial court noticed that the purported owner of the property had not been properly made a party to the action. Accordingly, the trial court granted the City‟s motion to amend. Although the purported owner moved for a mistrial and/or a continuance, the trial court proceeded on to rule against the purported owner for several violations of the local building code. The purported owner appeals. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings to allow the purported owner of the properties an opportunity to meaningfully respond to the allegations against him in accordance with Rule 15.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.