APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal by defendant/appellant, Joseph L. Mercer, III, from a decision of the Chancery Court for Williamson County awarding plaintiff/appellee, Cynthia Albright, attorney's fees of $1,000.00.

This appeal involves over $45,000 seized during the search of a house in Memphis for illegal drugs. After the Commissioner of Safety ordered the forfeiture of the money, the person claiming the funds filed a petition for review in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the forfeiture statutes deprived him of his constitutional right to a jury trial and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The trial court upheld the forfeiture statutes and the forfeiture, and this appeal followed. We have determined that Tennessee’s forfeiture statutes are constitutional and that the record contains substantial and material evidence supporting the commissioner’s forfeiture order. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Allen D. Curtis and his wife, Carolyn June Curtis, from a decision of the chancery court which dissolved the partnership formed between Curtis and defendant/appellee, William M. Rice, and which distributed the partnership's assets.1 The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

This is a divorce case in which the trial court awarded custody of the parties’ minor children
to Plaintiff/Appellee, Sandra Garfinkel (Wife), with standard visitation to Defendant/Appellant,
Charles Garfinkel (Husband). Husband was ordered to pay child support and rehabilitative alimony for a period of one year. The trial court also held that Wife had not established any appreciation in the value of Husband’s separate property during the course of the marriage. Husband appeals the trial court’s rulings on child custody, child support and alimony. Wife appeals the trial court’s decision regarding Husband’s separate property. We affirm on all issues.

Rainbo Baking Company of Louisville (“Rainbo”) filed suit in the Chancery Court of Shelby County against Release Coatings of Tennessee, Inc. (“Release”) seeking compensatory damages from Release for damages allegedly sustained by Rainbo as a result of the improper straightening of a large quantity of baking pans used by it in its bakery business. The suit contained a count in negligence and a count in breach of contract. Release filed a counter-claim seeking to recover from Rainbo the balance due it for work performed. Following a bench trial, the court issued an opinion from the bench. In this opinion the court found that upon the evidence presented, Release was liable to Rainbo. However, the court specifically stated that it did not find that Rainbo had carried its burden of proof as to damages. The court ordered a reference to the Master to give Rainbo an opportunity to present additional proof as to damages, with Release being given an opportunity to present countervailing proof if desired. Following the Master’s hearing, a report was submitted to the chancellor in which the value of Rainbo’s pans was stated. The Master’s report was affirmed and judgment entered thereon in favor of Rainbo. The chancellor dismissed the counterclaim of Release against Rainbo. Release has raised three issues on appeal: did the 2 chancellor err in: (1) awarding a judgment against Release when Rainbo failed to prove its case; (2) the manner of determining the amount of damages sustained by Rainbo; and (3) failing to find for Release on its counter-claim. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we modify and affirm the trial court.

This matter appears appropriate for consideration pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

Defendants have filed a petition to rehear which, after due consideration, is respectfully denied.

This case involves contempt proceedings brought against Wendell Ray Loyd (“Husband”) by Brenda Bailey Loyd (“Ex-Wife”) for failure to pay alimony. The trial court found that Husband did not have the present ability to pay and therefore could not be incarcerated for contempt. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.