A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Antwain D. Coleman, of aggravated assault, domestic assault, and theft. The trial court imposed an effective seven-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his theft conviction and that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Herandus Washington, pleaded guilty to reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-213(a)(1), (b)(1) (2018) (subsequently amended). At the sentencing hearing, the Defendant sought judicial diversion. The trial court denied diversion and imposed a five-year sentence, to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a negligence and wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s estate and the surviving spouse against the apartment complex owner and management company where the accident occurred. The decedent died from profound injuries he sustained when he fell while attempting to remove tree branches that blocked the only path his disabled stepson used for ingress and egress to his apartment. The complaint asserted claims for negligence based on premise liability, negligence per se, and wrongful death. Upon the motion of the defendants, the trial court summarily dismissed all claims based on the finding that the defendants did not owe the decedent a duty of care because the accident was not foreseeable. The court also dismissed the surviving spouse’s independent claim for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs appealed. We find sufficient facts exist from which a trier of fact could reach a different conclusion than that found by the trial judge on the issues of foreseeability and duty. Accordingly, we reverse the decision to dismiss the wrongful death claim. We nevertheless affirm the dismissal of the spouse’s independent claim for loss of consortium because it does not represent a claim for damages separate from the wrongful death action. Rather, “a claim for consortium. .. embodies one component of the decedent’s pecuniary value of life.” Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 207 (Tenn. 2002). Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Electronic Merchant Systems LLC (“EMS”) appeals the district court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of its complaint against Defendant Peter Gaal for breach of guaranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. EMS argues that the district court erred in considering outside information, not granting EMS leave to amend its complaint, and finding that Gaal is not liable under a guaranty provision that he signed for debt allegedly owed EMS by Gaal’s company, Procom America LLC. We AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.

This appeal involves an interstate custody matter. The mother and child reside in Massachusetts while the father resides in Tennessee. The father attempted to obtain custody of the child by filing an emergency petition in the Knox County Juvenile Court. The juvenile court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The father appealed the juvenile court’s decision to the Knox County Circuit Court which, also finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a father’s petition for modification of a parenting plan and modification of child support in a post-divorce action. We have determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that there was not a material change of circumstances for purposes of modifying the residential parenting schedule under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-101(a)(2)(C). We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects and remand for a determination of the children’s best interests under the applicable factors.

In this divorce action, the parties have appealed the trial court’s classification of certain assets as well as the court’s overall marital property distribution. The husband has also appealed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife in conjunction with her procurement and enforcement of an order of protection. Following review, we vacate the trial court’s classification of certain real property assets as well as the court’s overall marital property distribution. We remand this matter to the trial court for further evidence to be presented concerning the values of one unimproved lot of real property and the parties’ retirement assets and for the court to value and equitably distribute all of the parties’ marital assets, including the two real properties in Alabama previously classified as the husband’s separate property and the various retirement accounts. We affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife related to her procurement and enforcement of an order of protection against the husband.

Following a jury trial in this premises liability action involving a patron’s fall while on a cavern tour operated by the defendant, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant upon the jury’s verdict. The jury found that although the defendant had been negligent in violating a common law duty to use ordinary care to avoid injury to a visitor on its premises, the defendant’s negligence had not been a legal and factual cause of the damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The jury also found that the building code adopted by the City of Chattanooga, where the cavern is located, did not apply to the area where the fall occurred. The court subsequently denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, approving the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

For the week of January 23, 2023 - January 27, 2023

Following his indictment for first degree murder, a Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, George E. Burns, III, of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of 17 years. The trial court subsequently granted the Defendant’s motion for new trial. The Defendant later entered a best-interest plea to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, where the agreed sentence would be eight-andone- half years at 60 percent, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.