The Defendant, Jamie Paul Dennis, was convicted by a Stewart County Circuit Court jury of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and attempted incest, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to respective terms of twenty-eight years and twelve years, to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in failing to provide a modified unanimity jury instruction where the State did not make an election of offenses. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a health care liability action. Darryl G. Rush-Mack (“Decedent”) died while receiving care at Baptist Memorial Hospital (“the Hospital”). Alvin Mack (“Mr. Mack”), Kevin Mack, and Darwisha Mack Williams (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) sued the Hospital and Dr. Aaron Kuperman (“Dr. Kuperman”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. Thirty days from entry of the order passed without Plaintiffs filing a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to set aside pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 asserting that the order was not stamped to be mailed until six days after it was filed and it went to a PO Box Plaintiffs’ counsel does not use for business. The Trial Court granted the motion and entered a new order of dismissal, from which Mr. Mack appeals. We find that Mr. Mack failed to meet the clear and convincing evidentiary burden necessary for Rule 60.02 relief; indeed, the Trial Court relied only upon statements of counsel rather than evidence. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s grant of Plaintiffs’ Rule 60.02 motion.

This appeal arises from a boundary dispute in a residential neighborhood in Nashville. After a bench trial, the court determined the boundary between the plaintiff’s and the defendants’ properties was depicted on a survey prepared by the plaintiff’s surveyor. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in determining the location of the boundary. Having concluded that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s decision, we affirm. Additionally, we have determined that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary expenses and attorney’s fees incurred as the result of a frivolous appeal in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to make the appropriate award.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This case involves numerous claims initiated by Nicole Massey against her former employer, Great Lakes Water Authority. After Massey filed bankruptcy proceedings, Kenneth Nathan, the Chapter 7 trustee of Massey’s bankruptcy estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Nathan alleges that Great Lakes subjected Massey to a hostile work environment through sexual harassment, retaliated against Massey for opposing sexual harassment, and retaliated against Massey for taking leave guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Great Lakes on each of Nathan’s claims. We affirm.

A Rutherford County jury convicted Defendant, John Dennis Green, of aggravated assault and domestic assault, for which the trial court imposed an effective three-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Upon a petition for common law certiorari filed by a community organization comprised of several homeowners’ associations and individual homeowners, the trial court reversed a decision by the Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) affirming the Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission’s approval of the respondent developer’s neighborhood development plan. The trial court determined the BZA’s decision to be illegal upon finding that the development plan included an on-site wastewater treatment plant in violation of the applicable zoning ordinance. The trial court subsequently denied cross-motions to alter or amend the judgment. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of his petition to quiet title based on res judicata and waiver. This is the fourth action between the parties, or their privies, involving real property the plaintiff lost in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale in 2012. The first three actions were decided on the merits adversely to the plaintiff. Following the dismissal of the third action regarding the same real property, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the plaintiff consented to the sale of the property to the defendant and waived all claims that had been or could have been asserted in relation to the real property. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to quiet title to the same real property. Upon the motion of the defendant that had purchased the property, the trial court summarily dismissed the action. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action filed by an inmate, Allen C. Bond (“Petitioner”), against the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), concerning the calculation of Petitioner’s sentence and whether he had been awarded the correct number of pretrial credits. The Trial Court dismissed Petitioner’s complaint for declaratory judgment upon its finding that TDOC had calculated Petitioner’s sentence in compliance with the criminal court’s most recent judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Marcus Johnson, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for relief from his convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault and his effective life sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his Rule 36.1 illegal sentence, habeas corpus, and post-conviction claims. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case in order for the trial court to enter an order reflecting findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each claim for relief.

This divorce action concerns the trial court’s valuation and division of the marital estate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.