APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a boundary line dispute. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants to establish common boundary lines and to recover for timber cut from their land. One of the defendants counterclaimed for damages to his land. The trial court found that the defendants' proposed boundary line was the correct boundary line, but granted the plaintiffs a perpetual easement over the defendants' land. The trial court declined to award the plaintiffs compensation for the cut timber. On appeal, one of the defendants argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to produce findings of facts, erred in granting a perpetual easement across the defendants' land, and erred in failing to grant the defendants damages. The plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in failing to award them damages and discretionary costs. We reverse the award of a perpetual easement since the record does not indicate that such relief was sought, and affirm the remainder of the trial court's decision.

This is an insurance case. The mother and the father were covered by an automobile insurance policy that excluded coverage for certain family members who were residents of the same household as the insureds. The mother was pregnant with a viable fetus. She was at fault in an automobile accident in which she and the fetus died. On behalf of the deceased fetus, the father filed a wrongful death action against the mother's estate. On a motion for partial summary judgment, the father sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether the insurance company was obligated to provide coverage for the deceased fetus. The trial court found that the insurance policy's family exclusion provision was ambiguous. Consequently, it construed the policy in favor of the father, finding that the fetus was not considered a resident of the father's household and that the insurance company was required to provide coverage for the deceased fetus. After a trial, the father was awarded damages plus prejudgment interest. The insurance company and the administrator ad litem of the mother's estate appeal. The insurance company argues that the fetus was excluded from coverage. The administrator ad litem of the mother's estate asserts that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. We reverse, finding that the fetus was a resident of the mother's household, and consequently a resident of the father's household, and that the insurance company was therefore not obligated to provide coverage for the fetus. The award of prejudgment interest is reversed as well.

After a thirty-six year marriage, Wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, inappropriate marital conduct, and adultery. The trial court granted the divorce to Wife, divided the marital property, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $425 per month. Husband appeals. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this divorce Husband appeals the type and amount of alimony awarded Wife at the end of a twenty-three year marriage. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings and the trial court acted within its discretion in applying relevant legal principles, we affirm.

While I concur in the majority’s opinion finding that grounds for termination of Hall’s parental rights as to R.L.H. have been established by clear and convincing evidence, I dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that termination of Hall’s parental rights is in the best interests of the minor child. I recognize that the evidence is certainly not favorable to Hall in some particulars, including the fact that her sole support is derived from social security, that she has no prospects of employment in the near future, her past failure to provide a safe and suitable home for the minor child in the face of abuse, her impaired mental condition, and the fact that Hall had no suitable residence for the child at the time of trial. However, this court must balance this evidence with the situation as it pertains to R.L.H. R.L.H. is a special needs child who has specific learning, speech, and behavioral problems. All reports indicate that R.L.H. is in need of continued counseling and therapy. Under the current arrangement, R.L.H. resides in a therapeutic foster home under the care of trained foster parents. This foster home has served as a stable and supportive environment for the minor child since approximately July 2000.

Petition to alter Respondent Utility's boundary was sustained by County Executive and Trial Court. On appeal, we vacate and remand with instructions.

In a dispute over corporate ownership and management, the Trial Court awarded Judgment for compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees. On appeal, we affirm the compensatory damages and attorney fees award, but reverse punitive damage award.