APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff filed suit to establish present title to land in Fentress County that had previously belonged to her family. The Chancery Court dismissed her suit on the ground that she lost whatever interest she had in the land through foreclosure. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that the trial court did not err in dismissing the suit, and we affirm.

This appeal addresses the issue of whether the “innocent co-insured doctrine,” first recognized by our supreme court in Spence v. Allstate Insurance Co., 883 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1994), should be extended so as to permit the appellant, Richard E. Finch (Finch) to recover under an insurance policy, issued by the appellee, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (TFMIC), for loss to property held jointly with his co-insured spouse whose intentional acts caused the loss. The trial court  interpreting Tennessee case law to disallow such recovery primarily “on the basis of policy considerations,” entered a summary judgment for TFMIC.1 Finch challenges the correctness of that decision. For reasons to be set forth, we reverse and remand.

This appeal involves the enforcement of a 47-year-old restrictive covenant in a residential subdivision in Tullahoma. After a physician converted one of the homes in the subdivision into a medical clinic, a group of property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Coffee County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce a restrictive covenant requiring the property in the subdivision to be used for residential purposes. The trial court, sitting without a jury, determined that the restrictive covenant remained enforceable, directed the physician to remove an illuminated exterior sign, and awarded attorney’s fees to the property owners. On this appeal,  the physician takes issue with the enforcement of the restrictive covenant and with the award of attorney’s fees. While we affirm the enforcement of the restrictive covenant, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

The petitioner, Tennessee Consumer Advocate, has petitioned this Court for review of administrative decisions of the Tennessee Public Services Commission pursuant to T.R.A.P. Rule 12. By order entered by this Court on October 3, 1996, the review is limited to an order entered by the Commission on May 3, 1996. However, the circumstances stated hereafter require reference to an order previously entered by the Tennessee Public Service Commission on May 12, 1995.

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion, it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.
 

The captioned petitioners sought judicial review and reversal of the administrative order of the respondent Board subjecting them to discipline for professional misconduct. From a judgment affirming the administrative order, the petitioners have appealed, presenting the issue for review in the following terms: The Petitioner-Appellants, Frank McNiel, M.D. and Janet McNiel, M.D., respectfully submit that the issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners’ decision to discipline their license to practice medicine in Tennessee should be reversed pursuant to T.C.A. §4-5-322(h) of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, in that the decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious.