APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This dispute over the custody of a minor child arose after the paternal grandparents filed an intervening petition for child custody. They were granted temporary custody of the child pending a hearing on the matter. After two hearings, the trial court ordered that custody remain with the paternal grandparents pending the results of home studies of each party seeking custody, i.e., the mother and the paternal grandparents. The trial court held additional hearings after receiving the results of the home studies and awarded custody to the paternal grandparents. We affirm the trial court.

This is the third occasion which this Court has had to address the merits of this case. By prior opinions and judgments entered on September 6, 1996, and February 17, 1998, respectively, the Court addressed previous issues on appeal. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court adopts and incorporates herein the following recitation of facts contained in our opinion entered in this cause on February 17, 1998: In this case, an inmate at a state correctional institution filed
a defamation [lawsuit] in circuit court against two state employees. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the Tennessee Claims Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The trial court also denied the plaintiff's requests for default judgment. . . .

David Aaron Goodman (“Husband” or “Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court which awarded a divorce to Halle Lynn Goodman (“Wife” or “Appellee”), found Wife to be incapable of being rehabilitated and ordered Husband to pay the sum of $2,200.00 per month to Wife as alimony in futuro, and the sum of $16,961.25 as alimony in solido for Wife’s attorney fees, and further ordered Husband to pay credit card debt in the amount of $22,000.00 incurred by Wife after separation.

This personal injury case arose when Plaintiff Barbara Cornett sustained injuries while operating a lawn mower manufactured by Defendant Deere & Company and sold by General Equipment and its owner Vernon Keith. Ms. Cornett sued, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. She also sought punitive damages. The first trial concluded with a directed verdict for the defendants at the conclusion of the evidence. The trial court, however, granted Ms. Cornett a new trial.1 In the second trial, the court granted directed verdicts to Vernon Keith on all issues, to both General Equipment and Deere & Company on the issues of negligence and punitive damages and to General Equipment on the strict liability claim. The jury returned a defense verdict on the remaining breach of warranty and strict liability claims. Ms. Cornett appeals, alleging ten errors. We affirm.