APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiff inmate filed a petition with the Tennessee Department of Corrections for a declaratory ruling that he was entitled to a parole hearing. Upon denial of his petition, Plaintiff inmate filed an action against two Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole employees, seeking judicial review of the denial of his petition. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff inmate appeals and we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Samuel K. Robinson, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Clifford L. Taylor, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendant, Richard Lee Frazier, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's order revoking his probation. On appeal, the defendant claims that although he violated his probation, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves three cases consolidated for oral argument. Because of the duplication of the major issues in the cases, we consolidate the cases into one opinion. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions, acting on statutory authority, took emergency possession of a Tennessee trust company, filing due notice of such action in the Chancery Court of Lewis County. Subsequently, the Commissioner gave notice, as required by statute, of the liquidation of the company, which was commenced in the Chancery Court of Lewis County. The company filed a petition for writ of certiorari and supersedeas in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The court denied the petition for supersedeas and dismissed the writ of certiorari.  Appellants appeal. We affirm. In the Lewis County Chancery Court proceeding, the court approved the transfer by the Commissioner of the various fiduciary accounts administered by the company and other assets of the company, and the appellants appeal. We affirm. Included in the disposition of the property was real estate located in Bellevue, and the Commissioner filed a motion in the Lewis County Chancery Court for approval of the sale of this real estate. Objections were filed to the Bellevue sale motion. The court, after hearing proof, approved the sale. Appellants filed separate appeals. We affirm.

This is an action to recover damages for the alleged improper disposition of funds in a conservatorship account, conspiracy, and false advertising. The plaintiff’s mother was placed under a conservatorship, and the conservator opened an account at the defendant bank for the conservatorship. After the plaintiff’s mother died, the account was settled and the accounting was approved by the Gibson County Chancery Court. The plaintiff sought to recover funds from the account, but was informed that the account was settled. The plaintiff sued the bank and its branch manager for conspiracy, false advertising, and disappearing funds. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

The petitioner, Brian Alan Hanna, appeals from the Wilson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of theft of property valued over $1000, six forgery convictions, and effective sentence of eight years. He contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his petition was untimely filed and in denying his motion to discharge fines and costs. We affirm the trial court regarding the forgery convictions, but reverse the dismissal regarding the theft and remand the case to the trial court.

An unsuccessful party to an arbitration proceeding appeals the trial court's confirmation of the arbitration decision. The challenge is based on alleged ambiguities in the agreement to arbitrate and alleged failure by the arbitrator to disclose potential conflicts. We affirm the trial court's confirmation.

The Defendant was convicted of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty years, as a Range III, persistent, violent offender. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his written statement to the police; (2) the record contains insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (3) the trial court improperly commented upon the testimony of a witness; and (4) the trial court improperly sentenced him. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that there exists no reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is the second time that this case has been on appeal. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendants assert that summary judgment was appropriate based on the claims and defenses raised at trial, including res judicata, law of the case, and statute of limitations. We affirm.

I write separately to voice my dissent to the holding reached by the majority in this case.  The majority concludes that Father expressly waived the issue of whether the trial court correctly determined him to be voluntarily unemployed. Although Father did state in his brief that he is not challenging the trial court’s determination that he is voluntarily unemployed on appeal, I believe the issue should nonetheless be addressed. In doing so, I would hold that the trial court erred in finding that Father was voluntarily unemployed and in imputing potential income to Father on which to base an award of child support.

This appeal involves a dispute between divorced parents over one of their son's college expenses. Their older son became eligible for a substantial tuition discount after his father was employed by the university where he was enrolled. However, the father and son concealed the father's employment and the son's discount from the mother and actually sent her statements that did not reflect the discount. The mother paid one-half of the expenses reflected in these statements until she discovered the tuition discount. She then filed suit against her former husband and her son in the Circuit Court for Wilson County alleging breach of contract and fraud. She also sought a declaration regarding her continuing obligation to pay her son's college expenses. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the father had breached the marital dissolution agreement and ordered the father to pay the mother $2,737.01. The court also found that the mother had breached the marital dissolution agreement by declining to pay her son's college expenses after discovering the tuition discount and ordered her to resume paying her share of these expenses. The mother appealed. We have concluded (1) that the father committed a material breach of the marital dissolution agreement, (2) that the father and the son engaged in fraudulent conduct by concealing the tuition discount from the mother and then pocketing her overpayments, (3) that the mother did not breach the marital dissolution agreement when she stopped paying her son's college expenses, and (4) that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of the mother's overpayment. Accordingly, we have determined that the mother is entitled to recover $3,590 from the husband and that the actions of the father and son warrant terminating her obligation to pay the son's college expenses.

This is the second time that this case has been on appeal. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendants assert that summary judgment was appropriate based on the claims and defenses raised at trial, including res judicata, law of the case, and statute of limitations. We affirm.

This is a child support case. Custody of the minor children was removed from the biological father, and he was convicted of and incarcerated for aggravated sexual battery of his child and the manufacture of methamphetamine. The custodians of the children petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights, adopt the children, and obtain back child support from the father. The father owned 1500 acres of farmland. The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights, assessed back child support against him, found him voluntarily underemployed and, based on the incomeproducing farmland, imputed an earning potential of $45,000. The custodians appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by not imputing a higher earning capacity to the biological father. We affirm.

The wife died in 1998, and her holographic will was admitted to probate and the estate closed. In 2002, the husband died, and his formally executed will was admitted to probate. Thereafter, his executrix determined that a question existed concerning the ownership interest in the marital residence held by the husband at his death. As a result, the executrix filed a declaratory judgment action in the probate court to construe the wife’s holographic will. At trial, the wife’s daughter by a previous marriage attempted to prove that the wife’s holographic will was a forgery. The trial court determined that the daughter’s proof was not credible, and the court ruled that the wife’s holographic will vested fee simple title of the marital residence in the husband following her death. The wife’s daughter filed a motion for a new trial. While the motion was pending, the daughter filed an action in the chancery court against the husband’s children from a previous marriage asserting, in essence, the same allegations she raised in the probate court action. The probate court subsequently denied the daughter’s motion for a new trial. In turn, the chancery court transferred the complaint to the probate court, and the probate court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The daughter filed an appeal to this Court raising numerous issues related to the declaratory judgment action and the compliant filed in chancery court. As for the declaratory judgment action, we are without jurisdiction to entertain issues related to that case since the daughter failed to file a timely appeal.
As for the complaint the daughter filed in chancery court, we find that it is, in essence, an action to contest the validity of the holographic will of her mother. As such, it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, the probate court was correct in dismissing the complaint.  Moreover, we remand this case to the trial court for the entry of an award of damages to the Appellees for the Appellant’s filing of a frivolous appeal.

This is a claim against an estate. The claimant and the decedent had a romantic relationship. After the decedent’s death, the claimant filed a claim against the decedent’s estate, based on alleged promises of financial support by the decedent in the course of their relationship. The estate moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the claimant could not establish the existence of an enforceable contract or a valid gift. We affirm.

A Roane County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Vincent A. Hester, of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and felony reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years for the attempted murder and two years for the reckless endangerment to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court failed to perform its duty as the thirteenth juror pursuant to Rule 33(f) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this post-divorce case, Richard Austin Demonbreun ("Father"), filed a petition to modify the parties' visitation arrangement, seeking additional time with one of the parties' three children. Rhonda Fay Demonbreun ("Mother"), the primary residential parent of the children, countered with a petition requesting an increase in child support and the imposition of an obligation upon Father to pay the children's unreimbursed medical expenses. In addition, Mother sought one-half of the refund associated with the parties' 1998 income tax return, and an award of her attorney's fees and court costs. Following a bench trial, the trial court (1) denied Father's petition to modify visitation with his oldest son; (2) increased Father's child support obligation and his share of non-covered medical expenses; (3) awarded Mother one-half of the 1998 income tax refund; (4) awarded Mother $5,000 in attorney's fees; and (5) ordered Father to pay all court costs. Father appeals all of the trial court's decrees, and Mother seeks an award of attorney's fees for the filing of a frivolous appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part, but do not find this appeal to be frivolous in nature.

The appellant, Joseph Vermeal, was convicted by a jury in the Warren County Circuit Court of attempted aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant complains that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in refusing to permit his expert witness to testify, and the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an action for conversion involving two ex-spouses. The wife was the lone signatory on two trust accounts for their daughters. Without authorization from the wife, the defendant bank transferred all of the funds in both trust accounts to the husband’s account. The wife then filed this lawsuit for conversion, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the bank, the bank employee who transferred the funds, and the husband. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. As part of the plaintiff wife’s response, she admitted that she originally put the money into the trust accounts in order to defraud creditors during their divorce. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, based in part on the doctrine of unclean hands. The plaintiff wife appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of unclean hands.

In this case, the biological father of a child contends that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights. Father argues that the evidence presented is not sufficient to establish statutory grounds for termination and that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. Upon our finding that father was incarcerated when the petition to terminate was filed and failed to visit the child for four consecutive months immediately preceding his incarceration and our further finding that the Department made reasonable efforts at reunification, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, James Leath, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions.

This case involves business interruption insurance. The furniture store owned by the plaintiff typically sells furniture under “rent to own” payment plans, whereby customers purchase the furniture through payments over time. The furniture store was damaged by a tornado. As a result, the store was closed for eight months for repairs. The plaintiff store owner had a business interruption insurance policy with the defendant insurance company that covered the loss of business income during the time in which the store was closed for restoration. The store owner sued the insurance company for the loss of business income it would have received during the eight-month period of restoration. Cross-motions for partial summary judgment were filed regarding how to measure the loss of income. The store owner claimed he was entitled to the entire value of sales contracts that would have been signed during the period of closure, even though most of the payments under those contracts would be due after the eight-month restoration period. The insurance company, on the other hand, claimed that the store owner was entitled only to the value of payments that actually would have been received by the store during the eight-month restoration period. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the store owner, finding that the store owner was entitled to the entire value of the contracts that would have been signed during the restoration period. The insurance company was granted permission to file this interlocutory appeal.
We affirm.

Plaintiff homeowner filed a cause of action against Defendant builder alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of good workmanship, misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleged damages in the amount of $15,000 and “other damages,” and also sought punitive damages. The trial court found no violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $11,103 for the cost of repairs.  Plaintiff appeals and Defendant cross-appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Mother appeals custody order of the Juvenile Court of Williamson County relative to her oldest child who had been previously determined by that Court to be a dependent and neglected child. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter of jurisdiction and the case remanded to the Williamson County Juvenile Court.