APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a dispute between the deceased testator's second wife and the two children of his first marriage. The testator and his wife executed mutual and reciprocal wills which passed the bulk of their estate to the survivor. The spouses agreed, and their wills reflected, that when the survivor died, the estate was to go equally to the testator's children. In conjunction with the wills, the spouses executed an agreement that they would not change their wills even after the death of the other. After the testator's death, the wife began dissipating the estate, selling the family home, and giving her own child the testator's expensive grandfather clock. In an effort to preserve the estate, the testator's children commenced the underlying action, seeking to establish a resulting trust. After the trial court granted the wife's motion for summary judgment, the testator's children lodged this appeal. Because testator's will gave the wife his estate in fee simple, she inherited the real property as tenant by entirety, and there is no clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended her merely to hold the property in trust for his children, we must affirm.

Homeowners sued a builder for defective construction. The trial court awarded damages for breach and attorney's fees under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We reverse the award of attorney's fees based upon no proof of deceptive, misleading or unfair conduct by the builder.

This is an appeal from an order of summary judgment enforcing an option to purchase clause in a lease for commercial property. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding it had exercised its option under the contract. We reverse summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to the purchase price of the property.

Samuel and Marguerite Watson appeal the final judgment of the trial court which found that a transaction between the Watsons and the Littles involving the purchase of a house created a resulting trust. The trial court divested out of the Watsons and vested in the Littles all interest in the house after the Littles obtained new financing for the house and paid off the previous mortgage in the Watsons' name and repaid the down payment with interest. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Vendors of rental equipment filed suit to collect unpaid invoices from the landowner after the contractor abandoned the job. The trial court granted recovery based upon the Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Lien Statute and quantum meruit. We reverse for insufficient proof on the correct measure of damages. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded.
 

This appeal arises from a complaint filed against the Appellants in the Chancery Court of Williamson County for negligence, breach of contract, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act relating to the construction of and failure to repair a new home. The Appellants were insured by the Appellee. Following a jury trial, the jury found that the Appellants breached the construction contract. The jury also found that the Appellants were guilty of negligence and engaged in willfully deceptive or unfair actions. The jury returned a verdict against the Appellants for $98,500.00. The Chancery Court of Williamson County doubled the damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and awarded attorney's fees and costs in the total amount of $303,248.55. The Appellee paid $48,500.00 in satisfaction of the judgment. The Appellants filed a complaint against the Appellee in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The complaint alleged that the Appellee breached its obligation to pay the balance of the judgment, acted in bad faith by denying coverage to the Appellants, and willfully and knowingly violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Appellee's motion for summary judgment. The Appellants appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

This is a post-divorce case regarding alimony and child support. The husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro, and child support for the parties' minor child. Later, the husband was terminated from his job, and his income dropped substantially. The husband fell behind in his support payments. Consequently, he sought a reduction in alimony and child support. Noting that the husband retained substantial assets, the trial court found that the husband was able to fulfill his obligations, denied his request for reduction in alimony, ordered him to pay his arrearage in alimony and child support, and awarded the wife reasonable attorney's fees. Child support was terminated because the minor child had graduated from high school by the time of the trial. The husband now appeals. We affirm, finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, in of the termination of the husband's child support obligation, the wife's continued need for alimony, and the husband's retention of significant assets.