APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

By special verdict the jury found that the defendant automobile dealer willfully and knowingly
violated the Consumer Protection Act by selling the Plaintiff a used Lexus automobile that had been wrecked but nevertheless was a certified vehicle under the manufacturer’s guidelines. More than a year later - after the Plaintiff himself wrecked the vehicle and drag-raced it various times - he discovered that some panels had been re-painted, leading to the conclusion that the vehicle had been wrecked before he purchased it. The dealer agreed to repurchase the vehicle which was left in its charge, but the Plaintiff, after consulting counsel, returned to the Defendant’s place of business and removed the vehicle. The jury assessed damages of $4000.00, remitted to $2500.00. The Plaintiff moved for treble damages and attorney fees: the Defendant moved for judgment NOV, because the issue of “willful and knowing” violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is a question of law for the court. The motion for judgment NOV was granted. Plaintiff was awarded $5000.00 attorney fees which he claims is inadequate. We affirm.

Donna Elizabeth Frazier Hill ("Mother") filed a complaint against Stacey G. Hill ("Father") seeking to modify the parties' Permanent Parenting Plan ("the parenting plan"). Father responded and filed a counterclaim. Mother proposed a revised plan that would reduce Father's visitation time and increase his child support obligation. The trial court denied Mother's revised plan with respect to the oldest child, but granted her proposed changes with respect to the other children. The trial court designated Father as the primary residential parent of the oldest child and increased his child support obligation for the younger children; however, the trial court refused to order Mother to pay child support for the oldest child on the ground that Father "has not required the [oldest] child to comply with the original Parenting Plan based on the child's expressed desires." Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in deviating from the Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines") based upon the ground espoused by the court. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as absolves Mother of any obligation to support the oldest child in the custody of Father.

In this litigation arising out of an automobile accident, Waynell C. Burnette ("the plaintiff") filed a motion asking the trial court to sanction Teddy Sundeen and Elhame Dauti ("the defendants") for a discovery abuse. Acting under the authority of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37.02, the court entered a judgment by default against both defendants and, in the same order, awarded the plaintiff damages of $100,000. The defendants appeal, contending that they were not afforded proper notice of the plaintiff's intention to raise the issue of damages at the hearing on the motion for sanctions. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as awards the plaintiff unliquidated damages of $100,000.

Plaintiffs sued defendant alleging that defendant was negligent, breached its fiduciary duty, and committed fraud and state securities act violations in brokering the sale of municipal bonds to plaintiffs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue based upon an arbitration agreement plaintiffs entered into with a third party. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant appealed. After reviewing the record, we hold that defendant has failed to prove that it is an intended third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. We affirm.

A Franklin County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrie Brown, of possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, assault and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirteen years for the possession conviction and ninety days on both the assault conviction and the resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this appeal in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the Appellants, J.D. Lee and the law firm of Lee, Lee & Lee, contend that the Knox County Circuit Court erred in its award of attorneys' fees. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

The custody of a four-year old boy is the pivotal issue in this case. The Chancellor found that the father was the better qualified to be the primary residential custodian of his son following a recitation of the bizarre conduct of the mother. We affirm.

The petitioner, William Alexander Cocke Stuart, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to theft of property over $10,000 and received a five-year sentence to be served in split confinement. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. The post-conviction court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings.

The defendant, David Clinton York, an inmate in the Clay County Jail, pled guilty to felony escape and was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in determining that he was a persistent offender, in denying alternative sentencing, and in applying the enhancement and mitigating factors. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Upon its own motion, the court hereby withdraws the opinion and vacates the judgment
previously filed on April 26, 2004, in this case. A new opinion and judgment will be filed.

We granted this appeal, in part, to determine whether fault was properly assessed against the patient in this medical malpractice action. We overrule Gray v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. 1996), and hold that fault may not be assessed against a patient in a medical malpractice action in which a patient’s negligent conduct provides only the occasion for the medical attention, care, or treatment which is the basis for the action. We also hold that the additional issues raised by the defendant are without merit. We therefore affirm the trial court’s post-trial ruling that the defendant is 100% at fault and is responsible for the full amount of damages found by the jury. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; Jury Verdict Reinstated
 

This is a Will construction case. The decedent's Will provided that her estate would be distributed to her husband. However, the husband predeceased the decedent leaving no issue. The only remaining provision in the Will provided that her estate would be distributed to certain orphan's homes if she and her husband died at the same time. The trial court found it unreasonable to construe the Will to require simultaneous death and distributed the estate to the orphan's homes. We hold that the Will contains a failed condition resulting in intestate succession. We reverse and remand.

The petitioner, Damien Lamar Owes, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury and stands convicted of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. He is serving a 30-year sentence. Aggrieved by his convictions, the petitioner pursued a pro se action for post-conviction relief predicated on the alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following the appointment of counsel and a hearing, the petition was denied. The petitioner appeals and urges that he is entitled to relief. We disagree and affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner pled guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft of property between $1,000 and $10,000 on August 21, 2001. He was sentenced to twelve years for each offense to run concurrently to be served at sixty percent as a career offender. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 16, 2002. The trial court denied the petition on January 13, 2003.  The petitioner appeals this denial alleging that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

By overruling Gray v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. 1996), a decision released only eight years ago, the majority disregards the principle of stare decisis and undermines the fairness goal of our prior comparative fault decisions. Therefore, I dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. In addition, like the Court of Appeals, I believe the trial court erred by excluding evidence of Larry T. Qualls prior alcohol-related conduct and testimony of two defense witnesses and by commenting upon the credibility of a defense witness. Given the cumulative effect of these errors, Vanderbilt is entitled in my view to a new trial.

The trial court dismissed count two of this indictment charging the violation of the implied consent law and barred the State from arguing in the defendant's trial for DUI that he knew he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. The State appeals. We conclude that the defendant was sufficiently advised of the possible suspension of his driver's license upon his refusal to submit to testing to satisfy the warning requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(a)(2). The defendant need not be advised of the correct and exact term of the suspension in order to satisfy the statutory warning requirements. The defendant was advised that he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the violation of implied consent law. Likewise, we reverse the trial court's limiting the State from arguing that the defendant knew he would suffer a loss of driver's license if he refused the breath test. Accordingly, we remand for trial consistent with this opinion.

On March 11, 1998, the petitioner, John T. Heflin, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence. See, State v. Heflin, 15 S.W.3d 519 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief alleging that his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to object to the testimony of a state witness. The trial court concluded that the failure to object to this witness' testimony did not amount to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities we conclude that the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore the judgment of the post-conviction court is AFFIRMED.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the defendant, Terry Byington, of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, and driving on a revoked license. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve an effective four-year sentence in confinement as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his DUI conviction; (2) the arresting officer improperly presented expert testimony regarding field sobriety tests; (3) the trial court erred in ruling that the state could question the defendant regarding a prior perjury conviction more than ten years old; (4) the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse herself; and (5) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father over Child. Only Mother appeals the Juvenile Court’s decision. Specifically, the Juvenile Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the basis of abandonment, persistent conditions, and noncompliance with the permanency plan. In addition, Mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to transfer the case and have the issue presented to a jury. Finally, Mother asserts the trial court judge erred when he did not recuse himself. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

This case arises from the termination of parental rights of Mother and Father. Only Mother has appealed the decision of the trial court, terminating her parental rights on the grounds that (1) she abandoned Child by failing to visit, (2) she abandoned Child by failing to provide more than token support, and (3) the conditions which led to Child’s removal still persist. Mother appeals arguing that the State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services failed to carry its burden of proof for these grounds. In addition, Mother argues that the Department of Children’s Services failed to prove that such termination of parental rights is in the best interest of Child. Finally, Mother argues the trial court committed prejudicial error when it allowed the rebuttal testimony of a witness in violation of the sequestration rule. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, Richard Lafayette Sumner, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Cocke County Circuit Court for two counts of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, and one count of aggravated arson. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each murder and twenty-five years for the aggravated arson, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's rejection of his insanity defense. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of first degree murder. We also hold, though, that the convictions for the premeditated and felony murders in counts one and three should be merged pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause. We affirm the convictions, but vacate the judgments as to counts one and three and remand the case for the trial court to enter a judgment reflecting a merger of those two counts.

We granted permission to appeal in this divorce proceeding to determine whether postnuptial agreements are contrary to public policy and if not, whether the postnuptial agreement entered into by the parties in this case is valid and enforceable. We hold that postnuptial agreements are not contrary to public policy so long as there is consideration for the agreement, it is knowledgeably entered into, and there is no evidence of fraud, coercion or duress. However, the agreement between the parties in this case is invalid because it lacks adequate consideration. We also granted the husband’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding alimony in futuro instead of rehabilitative alimony. We hold that the trial court properly considered all of the relevant statutory factors and that its award of alimony does not amount to an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This cases involves an action for declaratory judgment regarding an easement for the benefit of a landlocked parcel. The lower court found that an easement does exist and that the owners of the servient parcel are not entitled to monetary damages. On appeal, the owners of the servient parcel maintain that the lower court demonstrated bias in its comments from the bench and, further, that it erred in failing to award damages. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.