APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves an automobile insurance claim. The insured’s family owned a chain of
convenience stores. The insured applied for a personal automobile insurance policy. The insurance agent completed the application, indicating that the vehicle was for personal use, and the insured approved it. Later, the insured suffered personal injuries from a traffic accident and submitted a claim to the insurance company. The insurance company asserted that the vehicle was owned by the family convenience store chain and was used for business purposes. On this basis, the insurance company refused to pay the claim and rescinded coverage, alleging there were material misrepresentations in the insured’s application. The insured filed this lawsuit against the insurance company and its agent, and the insurance company filed a cross-claim against the agent. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the vehicle was not owned by the family business and was not used for business purposes, and that consequently there was insurance coverage and the agent was not liable. The insurance company appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the insured owned the vehicle individually, that the insured did not use the vehicle for business purposes, and that the agent was not negligent.
 

This appeal involves the interpretation of the attorney's fee provision in a lease agreement. The trial court awarded Landlord attorney's fees, and Tenants appeal. We reverse the award of attorney's fees, finding no contractual basis exists for the award.

This is a consolidated appeal of two lawsuits in which the trial court refused to enforce or modify child support orders administratively issued under Tennessee Code Annotated 36-5-103(f). The trial court dismissed the State’s petitions in both actions. We vacate the orders of dismissal and remand for proceedings on the merits.

This is a wrongful death case. The decedent was survived by her husband and two brothers. The husband gave his power of attorney to his grand-nephew. The grand-nephew filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging medical malpractice which resulted in the decedent’s death. The grand nephew voluntarily dismissed the claim. The grand-nephew refiled the action within one year of the nonsuit but beyond the expiration of the original statute of limitations. In the second action, the decedent’s husband was added as a plaintiff. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that the second lawsuit was time barred. The trial court granted the motion, holding that because the grand-nephew was not a proper party plaintiff under the Tennessee wrongful death statute, the first lawsuit was a nullity and did not toll the statute of limitations. We reverse, holding that the original lawsuit was not void, but merely voidable, and that the second lawsuit was timely filed under the savings statute.
 

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Marlin Financial & Leasing Corporation ("Marlin") against its insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide"), seeking a determination as to coverage under Marlin's insurance policy with Nationwide. Specifically, the suit seeks to obligate Nationwide to pay $8,333.33, the amount of Marlin's settlement of a claim asserted by AmSouth Bank ("AmSouth" or "the Bank"), and associated attorney's fees and expenses of $52,654.05. The trial court granted summary judgment to Marlin, finding that AmSouth's claim against Marlin for "loss of use" of certain property was covered under the business liability feature of the policy and that Marlin was entitled to reimbursement for the amount of its settlement of AmSouth's claim and Marlin's related litigation expenses. The trial court ultimately awarded Marlin prejudgment interest, but it refused to assess a bad faith penalty against Nationwide. Nationwide appeals and both sides raise issues. We affirm.

The Trial Court convicted respondent on "six counts" of contempt. On appeal, we hold evidence supports only one count of contempt.

The defendant appeals from the Trial Court's awarding Judgment to plaintiff for $1,000.00. The record on appeal is insufficient to review alleged error. We affirm.

The Trial Court terminated the mother's parental rights after finding statutory grounds to terminate and clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated. On appeal, we affirm.

Joseph and Nina Rotello ("Defendants") purchased a mobile home from Clayton Sevierville and financed the purchase through Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). After Defendants defaulted on the installment contract, Plaintiff filed suit and then filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment seeking possession of the mobile home. Defendants, who were proceeding pro se, filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, but failed to offer any competent proof to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The Trial Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and we affirm.

Husband appeals trial court’s final decree of divorce pertaining to division of marital
property. We affirm.

Janice K. Stewart ("Mrs. Stewart") was the record owner of a parcel of real property located in Tall Oaks Court subdivision when this litigation began. Several of Mrs. Stewart's neighbors filed this suit claiming Mrs. Stewart was in violation of the subdivision restrictions by having a freestanding metal garage and a separate large wooden structure on her property. The Trial Court agreed and gave Mrs. Stewart the option of keeping one of the structures as a garage and ordering her to remove the other structure. Mrs. Stewart subsequently transferred the property to her husband, Ed Stewart ("Mr. Stewart"), who then was added as a defendant. The neighbors filed a petition for contempt against both Mr. and Mrs Stewart when they continued to have both a freestanding metal garage and the wooden structure on their property. A hearing was held on the petition for contempt and the Trial Court held Mrs. Stewart in contempt and found the wooden structure still to be in violation of the subdivision restrictions. We affirm the Trial Court's finding that the wooden structure is in violation of the subdivision restrictions. We vacate the finding of contempt and remand for further proceedings on the claim of contempt as to Mrs. Stewart.

Appellant, pro se, employed counsel during appeal, but appeal is premature. We dismiss appeal and remand.

Competing Petitions between The Conservator of the Estate and the Conservator of the Person resulted in the Trial Court altering the Ward's living arrangements. On appeal, we affirm.

The paternal grandmother of an eight year old boy, who had had custody of the child for the most recent four years of his life, filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of his mother so the grandmother could adopt him. The trial court granted the petition, finding clear and convincing evidence of several grounds for termination and that such a step was in the child's best interest. We affirm the termination on the ground of abandonment.

In this child custody dispute, the Trial Court determined there was a substantial material change in circumstances and designated father as primary caregiver. On appeal, we affirm.

The Trial Court awarded plaintiff Judgment against defendants. On appeal defendants sought to reverse Judgment of the Trial Court. No transcript of evidence was filed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

This is a divorce case. The parties were married in 1972. In 2001, the husband filed for divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences, and the wife counterclaimed for divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct. After the March 2002 trial, some of the parties’ main assets were sold in foreclosure. In October 2002, the trial court granted a divorce to the wife on the grounds that the husband had committed adultery. The divorce decree resolved all of the property issues between the parties. The trial court also found implicitly that the wife could not be rehabilitated, based on a letter from the wife’s physician, and awarded alimony in futuro. Two weeks later, the husband filed a motion for reconsideration, based in part on the interim sale of some of the parties’ assets and the husband’s consequent inability to fulfill his obligations under the decree. In April 2003, the trial court denied the husband’s motion to reconsider. From that order, the husband now appeals and challenges many of the trial court’s rulings. We affirm the trial court’s division of the marital property and its allocation of the marital debts. We find, however, that the letter from the physician was inadmissible hearsay, and consequently reverse the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro and remand for an award of rehabilitative alimony and for other proceedings.
 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiff Mosley, a motorcycle patrolman, who was seriously injured in an on-duty motorcycle accident. Applying comparative fault principles the trial judge held Metro 75% at fault and Mr. Mosley 25% at fault for his injuries. Finding that Plaintiff has failed to establish cause in-fact between the alleged defect in the helmet and the injuries to Plaintiff, we reverse the action of the trial court.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of a mother to her two teenage sons on the grounds of abandonment, failure to comply with the permanency plan, and failure to remedy the conditions that led to the children being removed from her custody. After thoroughly examining the record, we agree with the trial court that all those grounds have been proved by clear and convincing evidence and that it is in the best interest of the children that the mother's parental rights be terminated. We also find that the Department of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to assist the mother, but that her own lack of honest effort rendered that assistance ineffective. We accordingly affirm the trial court.

The instant appeal was stayed in 1999 by this Court's order upon suggestion of bankruptcy. The stay has been lifted, and the case proceeds on Amelia Swafford's appeal from the trial court's order in favor of the defendants Bobby and Betty Johnson and Old Hickory Engineering & Machine Co., Inc. ("OHEMCO"). We reverse the trial court.

This case involves an order for child support for three children of three different mothers. The Juvenile Court of Hardeman County consolidated the three matters into one cause. The trial court ordered Father to pay the child support amount for three children under the Child Support Guidelines and divided the amount equally into thirds. The State of Tennessee Department of Human Services filed this appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

I concur completely in Judge Swiney’s opinion. I write separately to emphasize what the majority opinion expressly states, i.e., that the Defendant in the instant case did not challenge the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306 (2001 & Supp. 2003). I continue to have some doubt that the deprivation of a relationship with grandparents can form the basis for the type of substantial harm contemplated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993). See Dugan v. Myers, C/A No. E2001-00281-COA-R3-JV, 2001 WL 1117514, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed September 24, 2001), no perm. app. requested (Susano, J., concurring). However, since that issue is not before us in this case, we do not need to reach it.

The initial judgment declared that Standifer Lane was a public road for one-tenth mile only. Sixteen (16) months after the judgment was entered, the County filed a Rule 62.02 motion alleging that "one-tenth mile" was a mistake because all concerned had agreed upon two-tenths mile. The judgment was amended to provide that Standifer Lane is a public road for a distance of 950 feet or to an existing driveway. The Rule 62.02 motion is untimely.

This is a zoning case. The principal issue is whether a rezoning amendment must explicitly designate the maximum density approved with reference to ancillary documentation.

Sherri Dyer Kendall (“Plaintiff”) sought treatment for bipolar disorder from a psychiatrist, Lane Cook, M.D. (“Defendant”). Defendant prescribed Topamax for Plaintiff. Less than one week later, Plaintiff began to experience loss of vision, severe headache, and severe vomiting. Plaintiff was diagnosed with acute angle closure glaucoma and underwent several surgical procedures to control or correct the problem. When Defendant prescribed Topamax to Plaintiff, it was unknown in the medical community that a potential side effect of Topamax was acute angle closure glaucoma. That acute angle closure glaucoma was a potential side effect was discovered later by the medical community, and Plaintiff1 sued Defendant2 for medical malpractice. At the close of Plaintiff’s proof at trial, Defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.