APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

George R.W., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights with respect to his minor son, Fridrich E.T.W. (DOB: Aug. 27, 2008) (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) had filed a petition seeking to terminate both parents’ rights after the Child was taken into custody pursuant to an emergency protective order. He was subsequently adjudicated dependent and neglected as a result of being subjected to severe child abuse. As to Father, DCS pursued termination on the sole ground of severe child abuse. Father did not appear at trial. At the start of the trial, his counsel moved for a continuance based in part on counsel’s assertion that Father had advised her that he wished to effectuate a voluntary surrender of his parental rights. The trial court denied the motion and the hearing proceeded in Father’s absence. The court terminated Father’s rights based upon its finding that the sole ground for termination was established and that termination was in the best interest of the Child, both findings said by the court to be made by clear and convincing evidence. Father appeals. We affirm.

Amber Brazilian Export Resources, Inc., doing business as Amber International (“the Plaintiff”), filed this action against Crown Laboratories, Inc. and Jeffrey A. Bedard (collectively “the Defendants”) to collect a debt owed on an “open account.” The liability of Mr. Bedard is based upon a personal guaranty of Crown’s obligation. The Defendants admit that something is owed on the account but deny the amount and further deny that Mr. Bedard signed the guaranty in a personal capacity. The Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment supported by the affidavit of its president, which the Defendants opposed with the affidavit of Mr. Bedard in which he states that he signed the guaranty in a representative capacity. He also disputes the amount due as stated in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s motion. The Defendants appeal. We affirm that part of the judgment holding Mr. Bedard liable on the guaranty and vacate that part of the judgment setting the amount owed because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount.

An inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee, filed this Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge the decision of the prison grievance board and that of the Commissioner. All of the respondents filed motions to dismiss the petition on several grounds including that Petitioner failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805, that decisions bya prison grievance boards are not reviewable under a common law writ of certiorari, and Petitioner failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-806(b). The trial court dismissed the petition as to all respondents. We affirm.
 

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment. Appellant insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that Appellee was precluded from recovering under her home owner’s insurance policy due to her failure to submit to an examination under oath. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the failure to submit to an examination under oath was the nonoccurrence of a condition precedent to recovery under the policy, as outlined in Spears v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 300 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). Appellee responded that she had not failed to submit to an examination and argued that, under Talley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 223 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2000), the insurance company must prove prejudice in order to preclude recovery. The trial court denied summary judgment, citing material factual disputes and noting, without deciding, the divergence of opinion regarding the condition precedent issue. Accordingly, the trial court granted an interlocutory appeal for this Court to determine the applicable law. This Court granted the interlocutory appeal; however, upon further review, we have determined that this issue is not properly before us. Accordingly, we vacate the grant of the interlocutory appeal, remand to the trial court for further proceedings and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court terminated father’s parental rights to his daughter. We affirm because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s decision.
 

The Defendant, Gregory Keith Wiggins, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $500, a Class E felony, evading arrest creating a risk of death or injury, a Class D felony, and driving on a revoked license, eleventh offense, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to concurrent terms of three years’ confinement for theft and four years’ confinement for evading arrest. He was sentenced to a consecutive term of eleven months, twenty-nine days’ confinement for driving on a revoked license for an effective sentence of four years, eleven months, twenty-nine days. The Defendant, Robert Brown, pled guilty to theft of property valued under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days’ confinement. Each Defendant reserved a certified question of law related to their seizure by law enforcement officers. The Defendant Wiggins also appeals the trial court’s sentencing determinations. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant filed a motion to set aside an order that purported to settle a dispute concerning the real estate in a decedent’s estate. The court denied the motion; Appellant contends this was error. The parties announced their agreement to settle the dispute in open court. An order, titled “Agreed Order,” was subsequently entered but it was not signed by Appellant’s counsel; moreover, Appellant filed an objection to the entry of the order prior to it being approved by the court. The transcript of the agreement announced in court reveals that the so-called “Agreed Order” does not contain a material condition to the fulfillment of the agreement, that Appellant “is going to be borrowing money in order to come up with the funds necessary to offset that and pay these amounts to these other two individuals, so that’s part of the agreement.” We find the denial of Appellant’s motion to set aside the so-called Agreed Order causes an injustice to Appellant; accordingly, we reverse the denial of Appellant’s Rule 59.04 motion to set aside the November 3, 2010 Agreed Order. The trial court also found that performance under the agreement was not a legal impossibility, meaning that Appellant could obtain the requisite loan. We have determined the evidence preponderates against this finding because Appellant demonstrated that, due to the current appraised value of the property, she is unable to obtain the requisite financing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to the extent necessary to complete the administration of the decedent’s estate.
 

The issue in this case is which of two deeds of trust has priority. Deed of trust A was executed before deed of trust B was executed; A was also registered before B was registered, but after B was executed. We affirm the chancellor’s decision that A has priority over B and that equitable estoppel does not apply to change this result.
 

An employee sustained a compensable injury to her hand and elbow. Employee’s authorized treating physician assigned an impairment rating of 1% to both her right and left arms. The employee’s evaluating physician assigned 16% impairment to her right arm and 15% to her left arm. Due to the disparity between the physician’s ratings, the parties selected a  physician from the Medical Impairment Registry (“MIR”) who assigned 5% impairment to each of the employee’s arms. The trial court based its award of disability benefits on the MIR physician’s rating. The employee has appealed, contending that she successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of correctness given to the MIR physician’s rating. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Plaintiff filed an action to recover $150,000 due on a promissory note executed in conjunction with the purchase of its assets. Defendant admitted that it had not paid the full amount of the promissory note but denied that the amount was due, and asserted a counterclaim contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had breached the asset purchase agreement, committed misrepresentation and not disclosed material facts with respect to the transaction, had fraudulently induced defendant to close on the transaction, and that plaintiff had been unjustly enriched. Plaintiff filed a motion for dismissal and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted. Defendant appeals. Finding that the causes of actions asserted in defendant’s counterclaim failed to state a claim for relief, we affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim. We reverse the grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand the case for further proceedings.
 

Appellant, Greta Cooper, was indicted along with two codefendents for multiple counts of theft of property and forgery. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of eight counts of theft of property valued over $500, three counts of theft of property valued over $1,000, one count of theft of property valued over $10,000, and twelve counts of forgery. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to an effect sentence of three years, to be served as six months in confinement followed by six years on probation. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant appealed. On appeal, she asserts that the trial court improperly excluded a statement made by the victim to law enforcement that he gave Appellant the money which was the subject of her theft convictions. We determine that Appellant failed to properly raise the issue in a motion for new trial. Therefore, the issue is waived absent a showing of plain error. After a review of the record, we decline to review the issue for plain error because the trial court did not breach a clear and unequivocal rule of law. Specifically, we agree with the trial court’s determination that the statement made by Lonzia Taylor was not admissible as a statement against interest because it was made under circumstances which render it unreliable. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant-Appellant, Darius J. Hunt, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation. Hunt pled guilty to one count of possession of half a gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. He received a suspended sentence of eight years following one year of confinement. On appeal, Hunt claims that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and in ordering him to serve the sentence in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Johnny Wayne Beard, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his rape of a child conviction, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused him to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. After review, we affirm the lower court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

This appeal arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained after being assaulted by a co-worker while working for the Defendants. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging vicarious liability for the assault committed by the co-worker, and liability for the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of the co-worker, and liability for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants after concluding that they owed no duty to Plaintiff and that the assault was not within the co-worker’s scope of employment. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion to recuse. The trial court granted the Rule 60.02 motion, denied the motion to recuse, and Plaintiff appealed. After reviewing the record, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Prospective buyer who signed real estate sales contract sued seller, seller’s real estate agent and broker, and the actual buyers for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and specific performance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that there was no enforceable contract. We affirm.
 

This appeal arises out of a bank’s suit seeking to reform a deed of trust to correct a mutual mistake, prevent unjust enrichment, and impose an equitable lien against the defendants’ property. The bank appeals the finding that there was no mutual mistake and the dismissal of the complaint. Because the order appealed does not resolve all claims, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment and remand the case.
 

Plaintiff, an employee, shareholder, and director of Wellness Solutions Inc., filed this action against the Company and shareholders Steven Scesa and Laura Reaves following the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Wellness Solutions, Inc., asserting a shareholder derivative action and claims for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of good faith. Following her termination and the initiation of this action, the Company exercised a call option contained within the Shareholders’ Agreement and purchased Plaintiff’s stock.Plaintiff then amended her complaint to include claims for breach of contract and false light invasion of privacy against Mr. Scesa. The trial court summarily dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims. We reverse the summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract finding there are genuine issues of material fact. We also reverse the summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for false light invasion of privacy finding that Mr. Scesa, as the moving party, failed to negate the essential element of damages or demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot prove the essential element of damages at trial. We affirm the summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of good faith, and breach of the duty of loyaltyupon the finding the Defendants demonstrated thatthe business judgment rule applies to their decisions at issue, which negates an essential element of each of these claims. Further, we deny Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-56-401(c) upon the finding that Plaintiff did not properly bring a shareholder’s derivative action.
 

A Franklin County Circuit Court jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, James Willie Blair, of public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor, and imposed a fifty dollar fine, and the trial court sentenced Blair to a thirty-day sentence in the county jail. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support Blair’s conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jon Douglas Hall, appeals the Davidson County Circuit Court’s denial of his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 1997 first degree murder conviction and resulting death sentence. The Petitioner contends that his conviction and sentence are void because (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change the venue of his trial, (2) the procedure used to implement the death penalty is unconstitutional, and (3) his confinement and death sentence violate double jeopardy principles. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A jury in Tipton County found Defendant, Maurice Shaw, Sr., guilty of delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years as a Range II offender. Defendant appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction and that he is entitled to a new trial because “the evidence was so tainted by improper actions and testimony of the drug task force officer and confidential informant.” After review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Marquise Harris, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. On appeal, Harris contends that due process considerations tolled the one-year statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Maurice Wilson, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon a review of the record, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in finding that the Petitioner is not entitled to reopen his petition. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appellant Estate sought declaratory judgment against Appellee widow for return of proceeds from the widow and Decedent’s jointly filed federal and state tax returns. The Estate contends that, under an Antenuptial Agreement entered by and between Decedent and Appellee, the income tax refunds were Decedent’s separate property, which thus belong to the Estate. Appellee widow contends that the filing of a joint tax return transmuted the separate property into marital property and, in the alternative, that a tenancy by the entirety was created in the tax refunds. The trial court found that, although the tax refunds were Decedent’s separate property under the Antenuptial Agreement, part of those proceeds should, nonetheless, pass to the wife. We conclude that the filing of a joint tax return does not create a property right, and that a tenancy by the entirety was not established. Consequently, as Decedent’s separate property, the tax refunds should have been awarded to the Estate. Reversed and remanded.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing an inmate’s complaint. Because the inmate did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.
 

The petitioner, Anthony D. Byers, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea convictions for seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, four counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of possessing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The petitioner raises stand-alone claims that: (1) his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony are void because they are in direct contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324(c); (2) his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony are voidable on double jeopardy grounds; and (3) three of his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping are contrary to State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1998). The petitioner also argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were involuntarily. After review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief from the petitioner’s convictions for seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and four counts of aggravated robbery. However, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief from the petitioner’s conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and vacate and dismiss that conviction and sentence.