State v. Pollard

To impose a consecutive sentence based on the dangerous offender classification the court must address the factors required by statute on the record.

The defendant was convicted of felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and

especially aggravated robbery. After merging the murder convictions, the trial court imposed

consecutive sentences of life for the murder and eighteen years for the especially aggravated

robbery. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded

to the trial court for a proper determination of whether the sentences should be served

consecutively or concurrently. We hold that, when a trial court places findings on the record

to support its sentencing decision, the applicable standard of appellate review for a challenge

to the imposition of consecutive sentences is abuse of discretion with a presumption of

reasonableness. Because, however, the trial court failed to address the factors required to

impose consecutive sentences based on the dangerous offender classification, we affirm the

judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand to the trial court for a new sentencing

hearing. To read the case in detail, click here. 

Modification of a Parenting Plan in a Post-divorce Action

If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree

pertaining to custody, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence a material change in circumstance. A material change of

circumstance does not require a showing of a substantial risk of harm to the

child. A material change of circumstance may include, but is not limited to,

failures to adhere to the parenting plan or an order of custody and visitation or

circumstances that make the parenting plan no longer in the best interest of the child. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

October 15, 2013 Session

ELIZABETH TIMMONS AUSTIN V. BENJAMIN HOLT GRAY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 06D63 Phillip R. Robinson, Judge

No. M2013-00708-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 18, 2013

This appeal arises from the modification of a parenting plan in a post-divorce action. In the initial Permanent Parenting Plan, Mother was designated the primary residential parent of their son. Four years later, Father filed a Petition to Modify the Parenting Plan, alleging that multiple material changes in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be the primary residential parent. While the petition was pending, Mother was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility; immediately thereafter, on Father’s pendente lite motion, the trial court designated Father as primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority pending further adjudication. Father then amended his Petition to enumerate additional material changes. Some eight months later, the trial court conducted a trial. The court found that Mother’s mental health, Mother’s attitude and untoward actions directed at Father, the child’s manipulation and power struggles with his parents; the child’s enrollment in an out-of-state boarding school, and multiple other factors demonstrated that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in their son’s best interest for Father to serve as the primary residential parent with sole decision making authority. Mother appeals claiming the trial court erred in determining that a material change in circumstances existed and that a modification was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

To read the case in detail, click here.

Dominion v. Dataium

This recent case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses a situation where employees and an investor from one company break away to form a competitor.  The original company files suit alleging several claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty and good faith, intentional interference with contractual relationships, unfair competition, breach of duty not to solicit employees and breach of covenants not to compete.

To read the full details of the case, click here 

Case of Enforceability of Mediated Agreement and Attorney Fee

The court can set aside a mediated agreement if it finds bad faith on the part of a party.

Whether to award attorney’s fees in a divorce proceeding is in the discretion of the trial court.
Below is a recent case where this occurred.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

October 18, 2013 Session

KALA SHAY HUNN v. KEVIN CARLTON HUNN

In this divorce proceeding, Father appeals the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Mother. Finding no error, we affirm. Additionally, we grant Mother her attorney’s fees on appeal.

To read the entire case in detail, click here.