APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a child support and visitation dispute. Mother and Father, never married, have two minor children. The parties lived together from 1997 until March 2001, when Father was arrested for domestic assault. Father moved out of the residence. Mother filed a complaint seeking to be the primary residential parent, requested child support and arrearages and asked for temporary support and attorney fees. The juvenile court placed primary custody of the children with Mother, set visitation, and ordered Father to pay $4,000 a month in child support plus $31,586 in arrearages. Father appealed, taking issue with visitation, child support, arrearages, and the court's failure to make findings of fact regarding the alleged domestic assault. Mother appealed claiming the court erred by rejecting most of her claim for her attorney fees. We affirm the trial court's determinations concerning child support and visitation, modify the offset against the arrearage owed for child support, and reverse and remand Mother's request for attorney fees. Further, we find that the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact concerning the domestic abuse charge because the alleged domestic assault was not against a minor.

This appeal arises from a divorce action. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; and Remanded.
 

Husband filed present divorce action against Wife alleging irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Wife answered denying the inappropriate marital conduct and subsequently counter-complained for divorce alleging adultery. Wife amended her countercomplaint to request a legal separation or in the alternative an absolute divorce. The trial court granted Wife an absolute divorce based upon its finding of Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court awarded Wife alimony by requiring Husband to pay for Wife’s health insurance for three years and, thereafter, pay Wife $50.00 a month. The trial court ordered a property division and required Husband to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees. We affirm the award of divorce, distribution of marital property and debt, and award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the award of alimony in the amount of $50.00 a month but vacate the award of health insurance and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

Appellant filed a petition to reduce his child support obligation following his loss of employment as a mechanical engineer and his inability to find other employment. Relief was denied, notwithstanding that two children had attained their majority, and the petition was dismissed. Judgment reversed and case remanded.

The issue in this case is whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. The plaintiff sued the defendants for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On July 15, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Thirty-two (32) days later, on August 16, 2002, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend, and the plaintiff now appeals. This Court, sua sponte, asked the parties for supplemental briefs regarding whether the appeal was timely. In light of the undisputed facts, we must hold that the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend was untimely and, consequently, that the plaintiff’s notice of appeal was untimely. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
 

This is a zoning case. The property owner applied to re-zone the property from agricultural to business. The Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development and the county planning commission recommended that the County Commission deny the property owner’s application. The County Commission voted to deny the application. The plaintiff/appellant property owner filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in chancery court, seeking to overturn the decision. The defendant/appellee County Commission filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The property owner now appeals. We affirm, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the County Commission had a rational basis for its decision.
 

This case involves the timeliness of a grievance filed by Appellant, an employee of Roane State Community College. The hearing officer determined that such grievance was not filed within the limitations period. Appellant appealed this decision to the Chancery Court of Davidson County, which affirmed the decision of the hearing officer. Appellant now appeals to this Court and we affirm.

Joann Mallinak Glassell ("Plaintiff") was represented by attorney James M. Crain ("Crain") throughout divorce proceedings she filed against Richard Lee Glassell ("Defendant"). After a trial, the Trial Court ordered the equity from the sale of the marital residence to be divided equally between the parties. The Trial Court then applied various off-sets to the amount awarded Plaintiff, thereby reducing the net amount of Plaintiff's recovery to $0.00. The Trial Court concluded that Crain's attorney's fee lien was lower in priority to the various off-sets. Crain appeals, claiming the Trial Court improperly subordinated his attorney's fee lien to the off-sets and that his lien should be given priority. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court and affirm as modified.

Appellee purchased Appellant’s overdue Note from FDIC, who was receiver of The Bank
of Alamo. Appellee sought to enforce the Note and trial court entered Judgment for Appellee.
Appellant contends that Appellee had no right to enforce the Note because Appellee was not a holder in due course. Since no defenses to enforcement were raised by Appellant, the question of whether Appellee is a holder in due course is irrelevant. We affirm.
 

This appeal involves a petition filed by the Department of Children’s Services to terminate the parental rights of Mother to two of her minor children. The trial court granted the petition and Mother appeals the decision. Because we find there was not clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination, we reverse the judgment.

I concur in the judgment that grounds for termination of parental rights in this case are not
established by clear and convincing evidence.

Plaintiff filed suit alleging Defendant breached its employment contract by failing to provide Plaintiff with phantom units when Plaintiff was terminated without cause. Defendant denied that Plaintiff's phantom units had vested, and therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to any phantom units at the time of his termination. The trial court found that the letter memorializing the Defendant's offer of employment was sufficiently definite and met the other requirements for a valid contract, including mutual assent. The trial court also found that the terms of the employment contract did not include any vesting requirements for Plaintiff's phantom units. As a result, the trial court found that Defendant had breached its employment contract and awarded Plaintiff the value of his phantom units contained in the employment agreement plus pre-judgment interest dating back to Plaintiff's termination. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the grant of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, involving the interpretation of a 1908 Deed, which created a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter. Finding that the reversionary language was triggered upon the property ceasing to be used as a classroom facility, we reverse and grant summary judgment to the non-moving Appellants.

Appellant filed petition seeking credit against child support arrearage for necessaries provided to minor children. The trial court granted Appellant $10,236.50 in credit toward his support arrearage. Appellant appeals asserting that the trial court erred in giving a percentage of necessaries provided. Finding that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proof in his claim for necessaries and that the evidence in record preponderates against the trial court’s findings, we reverse in part, affirm in part and remand.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a state prisoner. The prisoner was found guilty of money laundering by the prison Disciplinary Board, and placed in punitive segregation for ten days, ordered to pay a $5.00 fine, and was recommended him for involuntary administration segregation. The prisoner filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County alleging that the Disciplinary Board committed multiple violations of its own disciplinary procedures. The trial court issued an order granting certiorari, and respondents filed a certified copy of the disciplinary record for the prisoner with the trial court. After reviewing the record, the trial court held that the Petitioner had failed to prove that the Disciplinary Board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally, fraudulently or arbitrarily, and quashed the petition. Prisoner appeals. We affirm.

This appeal concerns a complaint of negligence filed by the appellants Raymond and Sharon Rollins against the Electric Power Board of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County (NES). The alleged negligence involved the cutting and removal by NES of three trees on the appellants' property. The Rollins appeal the trial court's final order in favor of NES. We affirm.

This is a proceeding to terminate the parental relationship between father and son. The mother's relationship had been previously terminated at her request. The trial court terminated the father's parental relationship on statutory grounds of non-support, non visitation, and best interests. Father essentially argues that his son, who was born February 12, 1996 in Texas, was hidden from him, thereby frustrating his efforts to support or visit him. The trial court found that the Respondent had little credibility, that he had no permanent address, and that he failed to keep anyone apprised of his address for the last four years. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court imposed sanctions on Plaintiff, who undisputedly spoiled evidence and lied in a sworn deposition, and dismissed Plaintiff’s cause of action. On appeal, Dr. Alexander argues that dismissal was improper. We affirm.
 

Father of minor child appeals the trial court’s order finding him in contempt of court, assessing arrearages of child support and attorney fees on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction in the original divorce action and all subsequent proceedings. We affirm.
 

Wife filed for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences or, in the alternative, that Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted Wife an absolute divorce on the basis of Husband's stipulated inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court further ordered a distribution of marital property and debt, awarded wife alimony in futuro and attorney's fees, and required Husband to maintain a life insurance policy to secure his alimony obligation. Husband appeals. We affirm the award of alimony in futuro, distribution of marital property and debt, and the award of attorney's fees as alimony in solido. However, we vacate the requirement to provide life insurance and remand.

The trial court found Plaintiff was the owner of disputed stock, but had failed to prove monetary damages. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings regarding damages.

This appeal concerns a restaurant's liability for the conduct of an employee who verbally abused and bumped a customer. The customer filed suit against the restaurant in the Circuit Court for Wilson County seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the restaurant a summary judgment and the customer appealed. The sole issue on appeal is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he harassed and bumped the customer. Because we find as a matter of law the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment, we affirm the summary judgment.

In this appeal an unsuccessful plaintiff seeks review of a jury verdict approved by the trial court, in favor of the defendant manufacturer. We affirm.

The plaintiffs bring this appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

The majority has determined that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant owed her a duty and that the plaintiff was responsible for no less that 50% of her own injuries. I respectfully disagree.