Court Rulings

WILLS/TRUSTS: The probate court did not abuse its discretion in removing the trustees of a family trust from their fiduciary positions under R.C. 5807.06(B)(3) where the trustees continued to administer the trust for nearly ten years after the established termination date of the trust and where the trustees did not provide any written communication to the beneficiaries regarding the administration of the trust for several years and then only sporadically. Due process was satisfied prior to the removal of the trustees where the trustees had notice that they may be removed from their fiduciary positions by the probate court's repeated warnings of that possibility and where the trustees were afforded an opportunity to defend themselves prior to their removal.

This is a breach of contract action involving a commercial lease. The plaintiff filed suit for non-payment of rent. The defendant claimed that it was not liable because it provided notice of early termination pursuant to the terms of the contract. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, claiming that notice was not provided within the time set forth in the contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We affirm.

This appeal arises from an action filed by Robert F. Clark ("Plaintiff"), seeking a declaratory judgment and damages against Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company ("Tennessee Farmers"). Plaintiff applied for a homeowner's insurance policy with Tennessee Farmers upon his purchase of improved real property. The effective date of the policy was to begin on May 29, 2013, the original date of the closing for the sale of the property. The closing of the real property was rescheduled to an earlier date. A leak occurred after the actual closing on the property but before the date of the original closing and the stated effective date of the homeowner's insurance policy. Determining that Tennessee Farmers had not been notified of the change and that Plaintiff had signed an authorization for work on the property, the Trial Court granted Tennessee Farmers' motion for summary judgment. We affirm the Trial Court's finding that the leak occurred prior to the effective date of the policy. However, we reverse the Trial Court's grant of summary judgment upon our determination that genuine issues of material fact exist to preclude summary judgment on other issues.

The Defendant, Edward Dean, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class C felony. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I offender to twelve years at 30% for the attempted second degree murder conviction, ten years at 100% for the employment of a firearm conviction, and six years at 30% for the unlawful possession of a firearm conviction. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his attempted second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm convictions and argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police, in limiting the testimony of a defense witness physician, in failing to give the jury an instruction on diminished capacity, and in failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments in Counts 1 and 2 but reverse the judgement in Count 3.

The Defendant, Kevin E. Trent, was convicted in 2015 upon his guilty plea of vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-213 (2010). The Defendant pleaded guilty as a Range I, standard offender and agreed to an eight-year sentence. The manner of service of his sentence was reserved for the trial court's determination. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing incarceration rather than an alternative sentence. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for the entry of an amended judgment reflecting the sentence of split confinement of time served and the remainder on probation. Upon remand, the trial court is to determine the appropriate conditions of probation.