APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The General Sessions Court of Shelby County found the petitioner, Michelle Lambert, in contempt for failing to comply with the orders of the court and sentenced her to five days in jail. Rather than filing a direct appeal, the petitioner responded by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Shelby County Criminal Court, alleging that the judgment was void for two reasons: first, because Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-103, which lists the punishments under the general contempt statute cited by the general sessions court in its order, limits the power to impose jail time to circuit, chancery, and appellate courts and; second, because the general sessions court failed to afford her notice or a hearing prior to finding her in indirect contempt. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court granted the writ by vacating the judgment and remanding to the general sessions court for “further proceedings not inconsistent” with its order, including the initiation by the general sessions court of the proper notice and hearing required for a finding of indirect contempt. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the habeas court lacked the authority to remand the case to the general sessions court upon granting the writ of habeas corpus. We conclude, however, that the petitioner failed to show that her judgment was void, rather than merely voidable. Thus, she should have sought relief through a direct appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court granting the writ of habeas corpus.

Plaintiff brought this action claiming, inter alia, that it was entitled to a mechanics' lien on the subject property. Defendant filed Motions to Dismiss, one ground being that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Trial Court subsequently ruled that the Complaint did not establish a cause of action to entitle plaintiff to a lien on the property. Plaintiff has appealed and we hold that upon review of the Complaint, and applying the rules governing the test of the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint, that the Complaint states a cause of action. We vacate the Trial Court's Judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties entered into a Contract for the sale and purchase of commercial real estate, and the purchaser deposited $50,000.00 earnest money. The purchaser terminated the Contract, citing the economic downturn and the purchaser’s resulting inability to secure retail tenants for its planned development. The parties disputed whether such termination was appropriate under the Contract, and thus, whether the purchaser was entitled to a return of its earnest money. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the purchaser and further awarded the purchaser its attorney fees and expenses. We find the economic downturn did not provide an appropriate basis for termination of the Contract. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the purchaser, and we enter summary judgment in favor of the sellers. The sellers shall be awarded the $44,362.57 remaining in the escrow account, and the purchaser shall pay the sellers an additional $5,637.43, for a total of $50,000.00. Additionally, pursuant to the Contract, the sellers are awarded attorney fees and expenses incurred in both the trial court and in this Court, and we remand for a determination of such award.

Petitioners petitioned the Trial Court to adopt three children. The Trial Court, upon hearing the evidence, held that the adoptive parents had met all the legal requirements to adopt the children and that it was in the best interest of the children for the petitioners to adopt them. Following the adoption order, one of the children's grandmother filed a motion in the Trial Court seeking Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 relief. The Trial Court overruled the grandmother's motion and the grandmother appealed to this Court. We hold the grandmother was not a necessary party at the proceedings, did not seek to intervene in the adoption proceedings, and was not entitled to seek relief under the Rule 60 motion. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

This is a divorce case. The parties had two children, still minors at the time of the divorce trial. After the trial, motions to alter and amend were filed, one of which disputed the number of parenting days awarded each party. The divorce decree was amended in response to the motions to alter or amend, and the trial court ordered the parties to try to resolve the dispute on the number of parenting days and report back to the court on the issue. Without attempting such resolution, the father filed his notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Jerry Phillips (“the Defendant”) appeals jury convictions for four counts of aggravated sexual battery, resulting in an effective sentence of fifty-four years. Specifically, he contends that the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony render the evidence insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Chancy Jones, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-four years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s exclusion of certain orders of protection, which had been sought and entered against the victim by persons unrelated to this case, and which the Defendant sought to admit in an effort to prove that the victim was the first aggressor. The trial court held that the orders of protection themselves were not relevant, but offered the Defendant the opportunity to introduce the testimony of the persons who obtained the protective orders against the victim. For his second issue, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Sumner County jury convicted the Defendant, William A. Osborne, of three counts of facilitation of aggravated burglary, one count of facilitation of theft of property between $500 and $1000, one count of theft of property between $500 and $1000, and one count of theft of property between $1000 and $10,000. The trial court sentenced him as a career offender to an effective sentence of thirty-six years, to be served at 60%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to find the Defendant guilty on Count 1 after the jury had previously announced it could not unanimously agree as to Count 1; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to declare a mistrial following prejudicial statements made by the State’s witnesses; (4) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (5) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that there exists no error in the judgments of the trial court, and we affirm those judgments.
 

Brian Dewayne Brewington (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of aggravated child neglect, two counts of child neglect, and the resulting sentence of twenty-five years. He alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and at sentencing. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
 

This appeal requires us to construe a provision of the parties’ 1987 divorce decree with respect to the amount of Bonnie Jean White Cain’s (“Wife”) share of Gregory Lee Cain’s (“Husband”) military retirement benefits. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in interpreting the 1987 divorce decree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
 

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.

This is a grandparent visitation case. Appellant is the former stepfather of the Appellee. After approximately twenty-five years of marriage, Appellant and Appellee’s mother divorced. During the marriage, Appellant maintained a close relationship to Appellee and Appellee’s child. Even after the divorce, Appellee allowed Appellant to regularly visit with her child. After Appellee began limiting Appellant’s contact with her child, Appellant filed a petition for grandparent visitation. The trial court concluded that Appellant did not fall within the definition of “grandparent” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306(e), and dismissed the petition for lack of standing. We affirm.

Defendants made a series of loans to Plaintiffs and a dispute arose as to the interest and principal owed. A judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. However, Defendants appealed the award, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, which allegedly reduced the judgment amount, and in refusing to hold all shareholders of the Plaintiff companies liable for the judgment. Plaintiffs also claim, on appeal, that the Special Master and the trial court set an incorrect “starting point” for determining the judgment owed. We affirm the Special Master and the trial court in all respects.
 

After obtaining a sizable judgment against her former husband in a Canadian court, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Tennessee in 1999 seeking to have property allegedly owned by the former husband sold in partial satisfaction of the judgment. After the former husband failed to appear or defend the Tennessee lawsuit, the circuit court also entered a default judgment against the former husband. However, other related issues involving other parties were tried and eventually appealed over the next several years. In 2011, the trial court finally ordered the sale of the former husband’s property in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Husband appealed from the entry of that order, and he argues on appeal that the wife’s attempt to execute on his property is time-barred under various statutes and Rules of Civil Procedure. Finding no merit in his arguments on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

This appeal arises from an alleged agreement concerning a waste collection business. In 2007, U.S. Waste Atlanta, LLC (“U.S. Waste Atlanta”), filed suit against Mark Englund and William Englund Sr. (“the Defendants”) in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”), alleging that the Defendants improperly took possession of certain trucks. U.S. Waste Atlanta argued, among other things, that written documents demonstrated that William Englund Sr. had an agreement with Clarence Emmer, owner of U.S. Waste, LLC (“U.S. Waste”), to transfer trucks to U.S. Waste Atlanta in exchange for an interest in the company. Clarence Emmer, on behalf of U.S. Waste Atlanta, made finance payments on the trucks but the transfer never happened. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Trial Court partially granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, awarding Clarence Emmer a judgment against William Englund Sr. for $36,073.90. The Trial Court also made this a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. William Englund Sr. appeals, arguing that a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an agreement existed bars summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The plaintiffs, survivors of a tenant killed by the criminal act of another tenant, filed suit against the defendant housing authority. The plaintiffs alleged the housing authority was negligent in failing to evict the other tenant at the first instance of violent behavior. The housing authority filed a motion for summary judgment claiming federal regulations preempted the plaintiffs’ negligence claim and that it was immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“the GTLA”). The trial court denied summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. We granted review to determine whether the plaintiffs’ negligence claim is preempted by federal law or, in the alternative, whether the housing authority is immune from suit under the discretionary function exception of the GTLA. We conclude that the plaintiffs’ negligence suit is not preempted by federal law. We further conclude that the housing authority’s failure to evict is an operational decision and that the housing authority is not entitled to immunity under the GTLA. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
 

The Petitioner, Asata D. Lowe, was convicted by a Blount County jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery, two counts of felony murder in the perpetration of a theft, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of theft. Lowe subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Blount County Circuit Court, which was dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, Lowe argues that the judgments are void because numerous constitutional errors deprived the trial court of authority to try and sentence him. He asserts that his right to a fair trial was violated by the State’s failure to disclose evidence and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury properly, that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the seizure and admission at trial of evidence, that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated by his counsel’s performance at trial, and that his right against double jeopardy and due process rights were violated by multiplicitous indictments. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

This is an appeal of an order setting aside a default judgment. The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which was granted. The order setting aside the default judgment was certified as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff now appeals. We find that Rule 54.02 certification was improvidently granted, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Mother appeals from the trial court’s post-divorce determination that a substantial and material change of circumstances occurred that warranted a modification of the parenting plan and the designation of Father as the primary residential parent of their children. Mother also appeals the termination of her alimony payments and an award of attorney’s fees to Father. We affirm the finding that a substantialand material change of circumstance occurred and that it is in the best interests of the children that Father be the primary residential parent. We affirm the termination of alimony to Mother and the award of attorney’s fees to Father.
 

The petitioner, Jacob L. Peachy, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, in exchange for a sentence of two years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective by improperly advising him that his sentence was to be served on probation. Following careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
 

This case involves the application of the statute of limitations to a legal malpractice action. Appellee attorney drafted a contract for Appellant medical provider; the contract contained a fee-split clause in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63-6-225. When the other party to the contract, a hospital, allegedly breached the contract and sued the medical provider, the medical provider counterclaimed for breach of contract. The hospital answered the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the contract was illegal and unenforceable.The trial court ruled that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63-6225 did not apply to the contract at issue. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the medical provider for more than one million dollars. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63-6-225 invalidated the contract, and remanded the case for dismissal. Within one year of the Court of Appeals opinion, the medical provider filed this legal malpractice case against the drafting attorney. The trial court dismissed the case as beyond the one-year legal malpractice statute of limitations. We affirm.
 

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Anthony Brown, of possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony, simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor, and simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The conviction for simple possession of cocaine was merged with the Class B felony, and Brown received an effective twenty-year sentence as a Range II offender. On appeal, Brown argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession with intent to deliver, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct at trial, and (3) the trial court erred in instructing the jury. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tray Turner, appeals as of right from a jury conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, in the Criminal Court for Knox County. Following a sentencing hearing, the court imposed a sentence of 14 years incarceration at 100 percent service. The Defendant contends (1) that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for aggravated robbery and (2) that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve 100 percent of his sentence. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 2008, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Ray Turner, of one count of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine and one count of delivering 300 grams or more of cocaine. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on appeal. See State v. Kenneth Miller and Ray Junior Turner, No. M2008-02267-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 1644969 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 22, 2010). The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, in which he alleged that his indictment was void because the State improperly amended the indictment to include that he committed the offenses in a school zone and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. On appeal, he contends the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment.