The defendant, Allen Cornelius Bond, was convicted by a Madison County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and attempted sexual battery, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to an effective term of sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served consecutively to a prior sentence.

This appeal concerns a contentious boundary dispute involving multiple parties. Plaintiffs Garrett and Alma Rittenberry (“the Rittenberrys”) initially filed suit seeking to have an easement set aside for their benefit through the property of Kevin and Lana Pennell (“the Pennells”) pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 54-14-101 et seq. Later, the Rittenberrys filed an amended complaint that alternatively sought relief by way of an easement across the property of Appellants Chris Burke and Lesa Hall (“Burke/Hall”).

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found that six grounds for termination of her parental rights had been established. Mother does not challenge three of the grounds for termination; thus, the trial court’s ruling regarding three of the grounds is final. Because the trial court may terminate parental rights on the basis of only one statutory ground, In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tenn. 2003), we need not examine the other grounds. See In re Alexis L., No. M2013-01814-COA-R3-PT, 2014 WL 1778261, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2014).

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in November of 2013 (“the Petition”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Kristen M.C. (“Mother”) to the minor child Kailee M.G. (“the Child”). After a trial the Juvenile Court for Sullivan County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Child after finding that clear and convincing evidence had been proven of grounds to terminate for persistent conditions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.

This appeal involves various financial issues related to a divorce. Father appeals the trial court’s determination of variable income for Father that he earns as an amateur bowler; the trial court’s award of transitional alimony to Mother; and the trial court’s order that Father pay half of the minor children=s private school tuition. We affirm the trial court’s rulings regarding child support and alimony. However, we vacate the trial court’s ruling on the payment of private school tuition due to the trial court’s failure to comply with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines.

This is a lawsuit brought for damage to property. After partial summary judgment was denied to the defendant, and after the trial court ruled that the defendant’s request for a jury trial was waived, the parties proceeded to a bench trial. During a hiatus after three days of trial, the parties settled the case and announced the essential terms of the settlement to the court in open court. The parties failed to agree to a written settlement document, and the plaintiffs asked the trial court to enforce the settlement. The trial court found that the settlement was enforceable.

Plaintiff, a firefighter, who sustained personal injuries while serving in the course and scope of his employment with the Nashville Fire Department, brought this action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) asserting that he sustained serious personal injuries due to the negligence of a paramedic who was employed by Metro. The injury occurred while Plaintiff and the paramedic were moving a patient in a wheelchair. Following discovery, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Convicted of rape by a Sullivan County Criminal Court jury, the defendant, Maxwell Monroe Hodge, appeals and claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the definition of “sexual penetration” expressed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13- 501(7) is impermissibly vague relative to that subsection’s use of the terms “genital or anal openings.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court.

This appeal involves an obligor?s petition to modify or terminate his alimony obligation due to his retirement. The trial court found that the obligor?s income had decreased to approximately one-third of his previous income level, so the trial court reduced the alimony payments by a corresponding percentage, to roughly one-third of the previous obligation. The recipient appeals. We hold that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when considering the petition to modify and also erred in its factual findings.