The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify child support. Because Father failed to establish his current gross monthly income, as necessary to prove a significant variance, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse and award of summary judgment. Plaintiff-homeowner took out a loan secured by a deed of trust on a parcel of real property. After defaulting on the loan, plaintiff and defendant-bank entered into a loan modification agreement. Plaintiff, however, again defaulted on the loan, and, after she failed to make the required acceleration payments, defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the deed of trust. The real property ultimately was sold at foreclosure for less than the balance owed on the loan.

The Petitioners, Kalpesh Patel and Pratikkumar V. Patel, appeal from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of their respective petitions for post- conviction relief from their 2015 convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder and solicitation to commit first degree murder, for which the Petitioners each received fifteen-year sentences.

The Defendant, Christian Aaron Needham, appeals the McMinn County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for his convictions for two counts of felony theft and one count of aggravated burglary and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective six-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering his sentence into execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Montgomery County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Michael Andrew Burrows, on seven counts of rape of a child and eight counts of aggravated sexual battery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty as a Range I offender to two counts of sexual battery, with an agreed out-of-range sentence of four years on each count, with sentence alignment, manner of service, and the issue of judicial diversion to be determined by the trial court. The remaining counts were dismissed.

Defendant, Kenneth R. Boyd, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion requesting additional pre-trial jail credits. The State responds that the appeal should be dismissed because it was untimely filed and that the sentence is legal. Because Defendant has failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion and the denial of additional pre-trial jail credits. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for correction of a clerical error on the corrected judgment form for Count Three.

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a personal injury action in which the alleged tortfeasor died before suit was filed. Upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court determined that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because no personal representative was appointed for the deceased tortfeasor and more than a year had elapsed following the accrual of the plaintiff’s cause of action, we affirm the dismissal.

The trial court entered an order awarding a mother retroactive child support and calculating the amount of support the father owed. The father filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. Several months later, he amended his motion to assert that he was entitled to relief from the judgment because his attorney sustained an injury and died, which prevented the father from timely receiving a copy of the judgment so he could appeal it.

A Claiborne County jury convicted the Petitioner, Robert Andrew Hawkins, of one count of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of sixteen years in confinement. The Petitioner appealed his convictions on the basis of a juror issue and sentencing. This court affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Robert Andrew Hawkins, No. E2015-01542-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 5210770 (Tenn. Crim. App, at Knoxville, Sept. 19, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2016).

Husband petitioned the court to modify his alimony obligation after Wife moved in with her boyfriend. Wife maintained that her new living arrangement did not affect her need for alimony because she and her partner shared expenses equally and her living expenses after the move were unchanged. The trial court disagreed and suspended a portion of Husband’s alimony obligation. Both sides raise issues with the trial court’s decision.