APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case is before us on appeal from the trial court’s decree of divorce and grant of child custody and support to the Appellee, Ronald Steven Caira. In bringing this appeal, Appellant raises two issues for consideration. 1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to award primary custody of the minor children of this marriage with Defendant/Appellee. 2. Whether the trial court made an equitable property distribution of the debts, assets and retirement proceeds of this marriage.

This is a divorce case. The parties, Granville Harvey Miller1 (Husband) and Linda Janiece Wright-Miller (Wife), were married for approximately 5 years before a final decree of divorce was entered in August 1997.2 During the marriage, the parties resided at a home located at 2166 Aztec Drive. On appeal, Husband challenges the correctness of the trial court’s classification of this property as marital as well as its determination that the asset is unencumbered. Husband contends that the true owner of the property is Heartland Investments, Inc. (Heartland), a corporation that he founded prior to the parties’ marriage and of which he is president and sole shareholder or, alternatively, that the parties own the property encumbered by a mortgage executed in favor of the corporation. Wife has also raised an issue with respect to the trial court’s finding that there was no increase in value of Heartland stock during the marriage. After review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We set forth our reasons below.

This appeal involves a divorce ending a long-term marriage. The husband filed suit to divorce his wife of thirty years in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, and the wife counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, declared the parties divorced, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony for three years. The wife takes issue on this appeal with the decision to declare the parties divorced, the division of marital property, and the failure to award her long-term spousal support and attorney’s fees. She also insists that the trial judge should have recused himself because of his prior professional association with the husband’s lawyer. We conclude that the trial judge was not disqualified from hearing this case. While we also find that declaring the parties divorced was proper, we have determined that the division of marital property and the spousal support award should be modified but that the wife should not receive an additional award for her legal expenses.

A licensed auctioneer and real estate broker filed suit against the defendant landowners for breach of an auction contract, because the defendants sold their land prior to the scheduled auction without his participation. The trial court held that the auctioneer was entitled to the anticipated commission amount. We affirm the trial court’s holding that the property owners are liable, but we modify the amount of damages.

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock.

This case involves a dispute between two neighbors in the Fairview community of Williamson County concerning the use of a gravel driveway. Three years after purchasing a tract of land on which portions of the driveway were located, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Williamson County to quiet title to the portions of the driveway they believed to be on their property. Their neighbors responded that the driveway was their only access to a pubic road and that they had acquired a right to use the driveway by adverse possession. After the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ uncontested motion for summary judgment, the defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion asserting that they had an “easement of presumption” to use the driveway. The trial court denied the post-judgment motion on the ground that the new defense had not been timely raised. On this appeal, the losing property owners take issue with the trial court’s decision to grant the summary judgment and to deny their post-judgment motion. We affirm the summary judgment.

This is an appeal from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the appellant sought a change in custody of the parties minor child on the grounds that there had been a material change of circumstances justifying such a change. The trial court dismissed the complaint and this appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

While riding as passengers in an automobile owned by defendant and driven by a close friend of defendant’s son, the intervening plaintiff was seriously injured in a one-car accident when the driver apparently fell asleep at the wheel. The passenger intervened in the driver’s petition and alleged that the vehicle had been driven with the express or implied permission of its owner and sought a declaratory judgment that his insurer was therefore liable for her injuries. The trial court found the driver did not have such permission and dismissed intervenor’s petition, and she appeals.