This appeal concerns a divorce. John Raymond Kautz (“Husband”) sued Doris Diane Kautz Berberich (“Wife”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Polk County (“the Trial Court”). The parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement (“the MDA”), which the Trial Court approved in its final decree of divorce. Some years later, Wife filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 seeking relief from the judgment on grounds that Husband failed to disclose certain assets. The Trial Court granted Wife’s motion. However, after a subsequent hearing, the Trial Court found that while Husband later hinted to Wife he had more assets than he disclosed, he actually had not concealed any valuable assets not already known to Wife. The Trial Court reinstated the MDA with certain amendments. Wife appeals. We decline to re-evaluate the Trial Court’s implicit credibility determinations, and the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that Wife was aware of the valuable marital assets at the time the MDA was executed. We affirm.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a will. The will divided the testator’s residual estate into as many shares as the testator had children with the further instruction that the share of a deceased child would be divided among that child’s “issue then living.” The will stated, in pertinent part, that “‘issue’ . . . includes a person who has a parent-child relationship . . . with the person through whom this person claims benefits.” When she died, the testator had two surviving children and one deceased daughter. The deceased daughter was predeceased by one of her two sons, and the deceased son was survived by two children—the testator’s great-grandchildren. The petition to admit the will named the two surviving children and the deceased daughter’s living son as the beneficiaries of the estate but excluded the testator’s great-grandchildren, whose father had predeceased the testator. When the testator’s great-grandchildren filed a motion to be included with their uncle as “issue” of the deceased daughter, the estate opposed the motion, arguing that the great- grandchildren were not “issue” of testator’s deceased daughter because the petitioners did not have a “parent-child relationship” with the daughter, who was the petitioners’ grandmother. The trial court agreed and held that the only issue of the deceased daughter who could inherit was her living son—the great-grandchildren’s uncle. We respectfully disagree. The will’s plain language “includes” persons with a “parent-child relationship” to “the person through whom [the] person claims benefits,” but does not exclude those who do not. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The trial court found that the minor child, Azhianne G. (“the Child”), was dependent and neglected in his mother’s care. The trial court also determined that the Child had been severely abused based upon his disclosures of sexual abuse perpetrated by his mother. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this consolidated appeal, Cheatham County juries convicted the defendants, Ariel K. Robinson, Christopher A. Duncan and Timothy David Shoffner, of attempted second degree murder, aggravated arson, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and theft of more than $2,500 but less than $10,000. The trial court sentenced the defendants to thirty- seven, seventy-eight and 162 years respectively. On appeal, Defendant Shoffner contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss because the indictment did not adequately charge him with the offense of attempted first-degree murder. Defendant Duncan contends that: (2) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. Defendants Robinson and Shoffner contend that: (3) the State delayed their viewing of the evidence before trial. Defendants Duncan and Shoffner contend that: (4) the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for certain physical evidence; (5) the trial court improperly admitted cell phone tower maps; and (6) the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury on facilitation. Defendant Robinson contends that: (7) the trial court erred when it denied her impeachment request. All three defendants contend that: (8) the evidence is insufficient to sustain their convictions; and (9) the trial court erred when it sentenced them. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Terry Ray Baker, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to the agreed upon sentence of fifteen years of incarceration, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because at the time he entered his plea he was confused about whether his sentence would be served at 100% or 45%, and his counsel did not give him time to consider his options. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A limited liability company sued its former attorney and his law firm for legal malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because the LLC’s cause of action accrued more than one year before suit was filed, we affirm.

Appellants, partners in a partnership that was the sole member of an LLC, filed suit against the manager of the partnership for alleged breach of fiduciary duties related to the sale of commercial real estate on behalf of the LLC. The manager and his business (a partner in the partnership, and together with manager, Appellees) filed counterclaims against Appellants, alleging breach of contractual and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed Appellants’ lawsuit on grant of summary judgment, and we affirm that decision. Appellees’ remaining claim for misrepresentation by concealment against Appellants was tried to a jury, which returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Appellees. Prior to the jury trial, the Business Court found, as a matter of law, that Appellees were entitled to indemnification by the LLC, and we affirm that decision. Because Appellants’ tort of misrepresentation by concealment resulted in a premature distribution of the sale proceeds by the LLC, the LLC was unable to fully indemnify Appellees. As such, the Business Court entered judgment against Appellants for attorney’s fees and expenses as compensatory damages. We affirm.

Question:

Effective June 22, 2020, the TRICOR Inmate Labor Act of 1994 was amended to provide that “TRICOR may enter into contractual agreements with counties and cities to provide work training programs . . . for prisoners incarcerated in county and city jails.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 41- 22-415. Does the phrase “work training programs” in § 41-22-415 include “work release programs?”

Opinion:

Yes. The phrase “work training programs” in Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-22-415 includes “work release programs.”

Tony Lynn Clabough, Defendant, appeals from the trial court’s denial of an alternative sentence and imposition of a six-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Terry Lynn King, through counsel, appeals from the post-conviction court’s order summarily denying relief on his amended post-conviction petition challenging his 1985 death sentence for the first degree murder perpetrated in the simple kidnapping by confinement of Diana K. Smith. The Petitioner argues that (1) the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance applied in his case is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v, United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); (2) the harmless error analysis utilized by the original post-conviction court and this court concerning the erroneous application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92(2016); (3) the Petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief on amended claims alleging that the State committed Brady violations at his original trial, that the use of his Grainger County conviction to establish the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance violated his constitutional rights, and that counsel committed ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the post-conviction court’s summary denial of the amended post- conviction petition violated the Petitioner’s right to due process; and (5) the cumulative effect of the errors resulted in a deprivation of constitutional rights.