| GARY W. BAKER v. JOSEPH SMITH & DEBORAH SMITH In the Matter of: T.M.S., A Child Under 18 Years of Age
Stuart B. Breakstone, Kathy D. Baker, Memphis, TN, for Appellants
William T. Winchester, Memphis, TN, for Appellee
In this appeal we are called upon to evaluate a juvenile courtās decision regarding a petition tomodify a previous custody order. The original custody order awarded custody of the minor child to the maternal grandparents over the objection of the natural father. At the conclusion of thehearing on the fatherās petition to modify custody, the juvenile court found that a material change in circumstances warranted a change in custody from the maternal grandparents to the naturalfather. The juvenile court also awarded the grandparents liberal visitation. The grandparents filed an appeal to this Court. We vacate the decision of the juvenile court and hold that thesuperior parental rights doctrine, not a material change in circumstances, is the standard which the juvenile court should have applied to the fatherās petition for a change of custody.
IN RE: CONSERVATORSHIP OF LAJUANA YVETTE BROWN DELISA PROVOST v. ALTON BROWN AND RON NANCE,CONSERVATORS
Melanie E. Taylor, Memphis, TN, for Appellant
Randell K. Brooks, Memphis, TN, for Appellees
This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the conservators requesting the imposition of aconstructive trust on assets received by the appellant after the decedentās death. After issuing a temporary restraining order, testimony was taken and the trial court determined that the decedentintended for all funds received by the appellant upon decedentās death to be held in trust for decedentās daughter, the ward. The trial court imposed a constructive trust on these assets,ordered that the assets be paid over to the conservator of the wardās estate, and determined that the appellant was an unsuitable trustee for the funds. The trial court further ordered that theappellant would bear the costs of the proceedings but the conservators were responsible for their attorneyās fees. This appeal followed. We affirm.
C. R. BATTS CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. 101 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL.
Henry Hale, Nashville, TN, for Appellant
John W. Rodgers, Murfreesboro, TN, for Appellee
This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.After a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the plaintiff $24,260.11. Additionally, the trial court awarded the plaintiff pre-judgment interest in theamount of $5,579.82. The defendants have appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CAREY RAY FAUGHT
Sam G. Smith, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Carey Ray Faught.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David E. Coenen, Assistant Attorney General;Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney General; Ta Kisha M. Fitzgerald, Assistant District Attorney General; and Philip H. Morton, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee,the State of Tennessee.
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Carey Ray Faught, was found guilty of carjacking, a Class Bfelony. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to nine years. The trial court ordered Defendantās sentence for thecurrent offense to be served consecutively to the sentence he was currently serving in case No. 71405. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in not granting his motion tosuppress the victimās pre-trial identification; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for carjacking; (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant above theminimum of the range for a Range I, standard offender, convicted of a Class B felony; and (4) that the trial court erred in ordering Defendant to serve his sentence for the current offenseconsecutively to his sentence in case No. 71405. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.