APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, seeking the balance allegedly due under a contract between the defendant and a third party. The plaintiff contended that it was the assignee of the rights, but not the obligations, of this contract. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the third party manifested its intent to terminate the contract prior to the alleged assignment. In the alternative, the defendant argued that its performance was excused because the third party filed for bankruptcy, which was a ground of default. The defendant also disputed whether there was in fact an assignment between the plaintiff and the third party. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

This is a divorce case. The parties began living together in 1998, and married in 2004. Some time before the marriage, the parties purchased a residential lot on which they constructed a home, financing the construction with a credit card in the wife’s name. Title to the home was in the wife’s name alone. The husband performed manual labor on the lot and the home during and after the construction. During the marriage, the parties operated a business that proved unsuccessful. The wife eventually left to start her own business in a different field. At approximately the same time, the wife filed for divorce. A trial ensued. The parties introduced evidence on the value of the home, various items of personal property, and a significant amount of credit card debt. After the close of the evidence, the trial court granted a divorce to the wife, and awarded the home and the debt associated with the home to her. It ordered the sale of some property and application of the proceeds to the parties’ debt. The remaining debt was not classified as marital or separate and was not divided. The parties appeal. The husband argues that the trial court erred in not awarding him a share of the parties’ business and the increase in value of the marital home. The wife argues that the trial court erred in failing to designate the assets and debts as marital or separate and to divide them between the parties. We affirm the trial court’s decision not to award the Husband a share of the failed business or a share of the increase in value of the parties’ home. We vacate the remainder of the judgment and remand for allocation of the personal property and the debt.

The State of Tennessee, acting on behalf of a father, filed a petition for contempt against the mother of the parties’ three minor children for her failure to pay child support. Following the contempt hearing, the trial court found the mother “might be slightly mentally retarded” but that she had the ability to pay and willfully failed to pay child support on eighteen occasions. Finding her guilty of criminal contempt, the trial court sentenced the mother to 180 days in jail. The mother appeals, contending the State failed to present sufficient evidence that she had the ability to pay child support and failed to present sufficient evidence that her failure to pay was willful. Finding the evidence in the record insufficient to prove that the mother had the ability to pay the amount of support as ordered and that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the mother’s failure to pay child support was willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.

Defendant, Kenneth Ray Kilpatrick, entered a plea of guilty in case no. 6670 to one count of manufacturing marijuana in an amount not less than twenty plants nor more than ninety-nine plants, a Class C felony; one count of facilitation of possession with intent to manufacture marijuana, a Class D felony; and one count of possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant Kenneth Kilpatrick as a Range II, multiple offender, to concurrent sentences of six years for his Class C felony conviction, four years for his Class D felony conviction, and eleven months, twenty nine days for his misdemeanor conviction, for an effective sentence of six years. Defendant, Carrie Fay Kilpatrick, entered a plea of guilty in case no. 6670 to one count of facilitation of possession with intent to manufacture marijuana, a Class D felony, and possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. In case no. 6689, Defendant Carrie Kilpatrick entered a plea of guilty to one count of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant Carrie Kilpatrick as a Range I, standard offender, to three years for her Class D felony conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant Carrie Kilpatrick to serve her sentences in case nos. 6670 and 6689 concurrently for an effective sentence of three years. On appeal, both Defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their respective requests for alternative sentencing and ordering each Defendant to serve his or her sentence in confinement. Defendant Kenneth Kilpatrick also contends that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors in determining the length of his sentence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Martin Leon May (“Father”) appeals an order of the trial court directing him to pay interest on a child support obligation. We hold that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the imposition of interest in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court entered May 24, 2007, nunc pro tunc November 14, 2006.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Gregory Yeary, suffered a compensable low back injury in October 2003. He received medical treatment and returned to work. In August 2004, he experienced back pain while lifting his two year old son. Mr. Yeary advised his employer that he had never recovered from the original injury and made a workers’ compensation claim. The claim was denied. Two evaluating physicians testified that Mr. Yeary had sustained a permanent impairment as a result of the October 2003 injury. Neither doctor could state with certainty the effects of the August 2004 child lifting episode. The trial court awarded 42% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer, CMH Manufacturing, Inc., has appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in failing to find that the August 2004 event was the intervening cause of the employee’s disability, that the amount of the award was excessive, that the trial court erred in requiring payment of unauthorized medical expenses, and that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employer also contends that the trial court placed improper conditions upon granting a stay. We affirm the judgment.

The defendant, Shannon Alan Griffin, was charged with two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault involving use of a deadly weapon, and two counts of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury after twice hitting his landlord with his car. The jury found the defendant guilty of all four counts of aggravated assault but could not reach a verdict on the two counts of attempted first degree murder. The trial court merged the four aggravated assault counts into two convictions and, as to the attempted first degree murder counts, declared a mistrial and ordered a new trial. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10, the defendant appeals from the trial court’s decision, arguing that he may not be retried on the attempted first degree murder counts because there did not exist manifest necessity for a mistrial and a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Following our review, we affirm the trial court.

The defendant, Neddie Mack Lawson, I, was convicted of misdemeanor DUI, his third offense. On appeal, the defendant argues that because he was indicted for felony DUI, fourth offense, and because the offense was committed more than one year before the filing of the indictment, he cannot be convicted of misdemeanor DUI because the misdemeanor conviction was barred by the statute of limitations.  Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A mortgage broker filed this breach of contract action against a real estate investor based upon the investor’s failure to pay a loan placement fee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the mortgage broker. Because we find that there are genuine issues of material fact, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs brought this declaratory judgment action, asking the Court to declare that building restrictions on platted parcels of property from a common grantor applied to a non-platted parcel purchased by defendants from a subsequent grantor. 

The Trial Court, responding to a summary judgment motion, made detailed findings of facts, and concluded that the “subject to” language in the deeds was ambiguous and construed the language against the inclusion of restrictions on any portion of the property that lay outside the platted subdivisions. Plaintiffs have appealed, and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of identity theft, two counts of fraud, and two counts of theft of property of $500 or less. The total effective sentence is three years with the manner of service to be determined after a sentencing hearing. Defendant also pled guilty to two failure to appear charges and was sentenced to two consecutive two year sentences, suspended by agreement. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that Defendant serve her three-year sentence incarcerated. Defendant has appealed arguing that the trial court erred by denying her request for an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, David Lee Cook, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily dismissing his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court’s order.

The petitioner, who is serving a twenty-year sentence for aggravated rape, filed the present post-conviction action alleging he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The trial court conducted a hearing and denied his claim, and he appealed. Upon review, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying relief, and we affirm its judgment.

Following a July 2006 jury trial, the defendant, Julius Hill, was convicted of one count of possession of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, one count of possession of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and two counts of simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court merged the two felony convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years in the Department of Correction on the felony conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days on each misdemeanor conviction, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to convict him of the felony counts and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Krista Regina Lesch, pled guilty to three counts of obtaining a Schedule II controlled substance by fraud (Class D felony) and attempted child neglect (Class E felony). She was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years on community corrections for one of the Class D felonies and to one year on community corrections for the Class E felony, with the sentences to run concurrently with credit for time served. She was further sentenced to two years on both of the other Class D felony convictions, with those sentences to run consecutively to the other sentence for a total effective sentence of six years, with time served and the balance on community corrections. The defendant violated the terms of her community corrections sentences on several occasions and eventually had her sentences revoked and increased. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in revoking her community corrections release and in increasing her effective sentence from six to nine years. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court.

In this domestic dispute, Father appeals contending that the trial court erred in its retroactive treatment of child support and rehabilitative alimony, the assessment of interest, the accounting of payments made by Father to Mother, denying Father’s requested modification of his child support and alimony obligation, denying his requested modification of the parenting schedule and awarding attorney’s fees to Mother. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand the case to the trial court for recalculation of the statutory interest and arrearages and a redetermination of whether the facts in the case support an upward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines.

The petitioner, Gregory Morrow, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell and two counts of possession of marijuana and resulting fifteen-year sentence to the Department of Correction. He claims that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. We hold that his petition was not filed timely and is therefore barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and we vacate the judgment denying post-conviction relief and remand the case for entry of an order of dismissal.

The petitioner, Jason D. Pillow, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal and that the sentence imposed by the trial court violates the terms of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Capital Petitioner Tyrone Chalmers appeals as of right the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1997, the petitioner was convicted of one count of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The jury sentenced him to death after finding that the evidence of an aggravating circumstance, that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies other than the present charge, whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), outweighed evidence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge imposed a sentence of twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, to run concurrently with the death sentence but consecutively to sentences previously imposed in another case. See State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tenn. 2000). On April 19, 2001, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. An amended petition was filed on September 22, 2003. An evidentiary hearing was conducted in August 2005. On January 24, 2006, the trial court entered an order denying post-conviction relief. On appeal to this court, the petitioner presents a number of claims that can be characterized in the following broad categories: (1) the ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the constitutionality of the imposition of a sentence of death. Following a thorough and exhaustive review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The defendant, Adell Watkins, was indicted for one count of the knowing sale of cocaine and for one count of knowingly and unlawfully delivering cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. She was convicted on both counts. Her convictions were merged and she received an eight-year sentence.  The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions.  Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

From a trial de novo of an unlawful detainer action in circuit court, the defendant homeowner appeals, pro se, an award of summary judgment in favor of the purchaser at foreclosure. In a filing entered in general sessions – and considered by the circuit court – the defendant homeowner raised the defense of wrongful foreclosure, alleging the lender had failed to notify her of the default, of her opportunity to cure the default, and of the foreclosure sale itself. The plaintiff purchaser failed to address these points on motion for summary judgment, thus leaving open this factual question. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact bearing directly upon the plaintiff purchaser’s right to immediate possession of the property, we reverse the award of summary judgment and remand the matter.

In this appeal, we determine the priority between two recorded deeds of trust. Homeowners entered into a line of credit with a credit union secured by a recorded deed of trust on the homeowners’ home. The homeowners subsequently refinanced their home with a bank. The bank paid off the homeowners’ debt to the credit union, and recorded its own deed of trust securing its loan. At that same time, the loan and deed of trust was assigned to a second bank. Despite the payoff of the homeowners’ debt by the assignor bank, the first deed of trust to the credit union was never released, and the homeowners continued to draw on the line of credit. When the homeowners began having financial problems, the assignee bank discovered that the credit union had never released its deed of trust on the homeowners’ property because of a provision in the deed of trust stating that its release was conditioned upon the borrower requesting the cancellation of the line of credit. When the homeowners defaulted on both loans, the question arose as to which party’s deed of trust had priority. The trial court ruled in favor of the assignee bank on the basis that the credit union was equitably estopped from asserting its deed of trust because, at the time of payoff, the credit union did not follow its self-imposed practice of advising if any action other than payoff was required before release of the deed of trust. After careful review, we reverse because we conclude that the assignor bank had the means of discovering that payoff alone was insufficient to trigger the release of the deed of trust and because, under state statutory law, it had prior notice of all prerequisites to release the deed of trust as a result of the credit union’s registration of such deed.

This interlocutory appeal arises from Plaintiff/Taxpayer’s action against the Commissioner of Revenue under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-1-1802 for a refund of taxes. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents sought by Plaintiff in response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss based on the statutory limitations period prescribed in section 67-1-1802. We reverse.