This appeal involves a personal injury action arising out of a car accident in a state parking lot. The original defendants raised the defense of comparative fault by the State of Tennessee, and the plaintiff filed a notice of claim in the Division of Claims and Risk Management and, later, filed a complaint in the Claims Commission. After the Claims Commission transferred the matter to circuit court, the State moved to dismiss based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the court granted the motion. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119, the complaint initiating a suit against the State was filed in the Claims Commission after the expiration of the 90-day grace period provided by the statute. Furthermore, we find the plaintiff’s argument that the State waived the statute of limitations defense unpersuasive.

This is the second appeal in this matter involving a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 23, 2019, in Nashville. Upon remand, following dismissal of the first appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a final judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual tortfeasor and subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against his underinsured motorist insurance carrier. The plaintiff has appealed. Determining that the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his negligence claim, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the tortfeasor. We further vacate the dismissal of the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist claim against his automobile insurer. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For the week of July 31, 2023 - August 4, 2023

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Rudy Guerrero was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He challenges his conviction on several grounds, including variance and venue, as well as his sentence and an evidentiary ruling by the district court. Because the errors he alleges are either not prejudicial or not error at all, we affirm his judgment and sentence.

A Jefferson County jury convicted the defendant, William David Phillips, of four counts of reckless homicide, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of felony reckless endangerment, for which he received an effective sentence of fourteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence, denying probation, and imposing consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the tr

The defendant, Luther Ray Mabe, Jr., appeals his Hawkins County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery and theft of property valued at more than $1,000, for which he received an effective sentence of 10 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated robbery conviction and argues that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the correct grade of theft for which the defendant was convicted and merging the theft conviction into the aggravated robbery conviction.

The Defendant, Danny Lynn Collier, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s ordering him to serve a four-year sentence in confinement after revoking his probation, arguing that the trial court should have elected to place him back on supervised probation. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff brought an action seeking damages for diminution of real property value, alleging that the defendant’s steam pipe exploded, causing toxic debris, including asbestos, to fall on the plaintiff’s real property. The plaintiff’s claims included strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity, ordinary negligence, negligence per se, public nuisance, trespass, continuing private nuisance, and medical monitoring. The trial court dismissed the entire amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) after finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the Tennessee Asbestos Claims Priorities Act. The trial court also dismissed the claims for strict liability, negligence per se, trespass, and medical monitoring with prejudice. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the entire complaint without prejudice, as well as the dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence per se, trespass, and medical monitoring claims with prejudice. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the strict liability claim with prejudice.

A surviving spouse brought this action against the estate of her deceased husband and his ex-wife and children. The surviving spouse sought to set aside the decedent’s inter vivos transfer of three properties to the ex-wife and children and/or to have the value of the transferred property included in the decedent’s net estate under Tennessee Code Annotated § 31-1-105, which applies when a decedent transferred property “with an intent to defeat the surviving spouse’s elective or distributive share.” The decedent conveyed the properties within three days of his death by quitclaim deed for no consideration other than love and affection. One of the deeds was executed by the decedent, and the other two deeds were executed by the decedent’s attorney-in-fact, his daughter. The chancellor referred all issues in dispute to a special master who found that the properties conveyed by the attorney-infact were conveyed with the intent to defeat the plaintiff’s elective share but that the third tract, which was conveyed by the decedent, was not. The chancellor adopted the report and recommendations of the special master. This appeal followed. After considering the factors identified in Finley v. Finley, 726 S.W.2d 923 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) and the totality of the circumstances, we hold that all three properties were conveyed with the intent to defeat the plaintiff’s elective share. Thus, we reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion, including a recalculation of the surviving spouse’s elective share based on a net estate that includes all three properties at issue.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights, arguing that the trial court erroneously found that grounds existed for termination and that such termination was in the child’s best interest. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm.