APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant, James E. Blount, III, appeals from the judgment of the Shelby County Circuit Court holding him in criminal contempt on two separate accounts and imposing sentence.

In this divorce action, Brett Paul Johnson (Husband) has appealed the trial court's ruling that Husband was not entitled to rehabilitative alimony and attorney fees from Lea Anne Johnson (Wife).

This appeal involves a juvenile court proceeding for child support. Petitioner, Susan Rier Metrolis (Mother), filed a petition against Timothy William Rier (Father) on October 28, 1993, seeking past, present, and future support for their two minor children, Crystal and Lisa. The petition requests that "the respondent should be ordered to contribute toward the support of said children according to the respondent's means and the needs of said children and reimburse the petitioner for the expenses of rearing the children with the respondent's assistance."

The issues in this appeal are (1) whether the misrepresentations in an application for insurance made the policy void as to the applicant and (2) whether the insurance was void as to the appellant's wife, who did not sign the application. The Circuit Court of Lawrence County granted summary judgment to the insurance company. We affirm.

The appellants are two lawyers who are defendants below in a malicious prosecution and abuse of process case. We granted their motion for an extraordinary appeal, to review the trial court's holding that the work product doctrine did not prevent the discovery of certain information generated in the prior case. We affirm the trial court's order

This appeal involves the custody and support of two children under twelve years of age. Both parents sought a divorce and requested custody of the children. Following a bench trial, the Chancery Court for Coffee County granted the divorce to the father, awarded him custody of the children, and directed the mother to pay child support. Both parents have appealed. The mother takes issue with awarding custody to the father; while the father challenges the amount of the child support award. We have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against awarding custody of the children to the father but that the trial court should not have reduced the amount of the mother’s child support obligation by the mother’s cost of providing the children’s medical insurance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves the imposition of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions for inadequate pre-filing investigation in a malicious prosecution case. After the Fifth Circuit Court for Davidson County dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against one of the defendants, the defendant sought sanctions against one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found that the plaintiffs’ lawyer had failed to make an objectively reasonable factual and legal
inquiry before filing the complaint, and ordered the lawyer to pay the defendant $1,500. On this appeal, the plaintiffs’ lawyer challenges the legal and factual basis for the sanctions. We have determined that the record fully supports the trial court’s decision and also that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm and remand the case for the assessment of damages pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 (1980).

This appeal involves a divorce in which the husband has been incarcerated throughout the marriage. After approximately four years of marriage, both the wife and the husband filed suit for divorce in the Circuit Court for Coffee County. Following a bench trial attended only by the wife, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds that the husband was incarcerated and that his conviction had rendered him infamous. On this appeal, the husband asserts that the trial court should not have granted the wife a divorce because she did not properly verify her complaint and asserts that he did not receive property that was rightfully his. We have determined that the judgment should be affirmed and that the case should be remanded for consideration of the husband’s property claims.

This cause commenced when plaintiff Linda Britton filed a petition to establish paternity and for child support in West Virginia, pursuant to that state's Uniform Reciprocal Support Act (URESA). The petition was forwarded to the Circuit Court for Coffee County, Tennessee for prosecution.

Plaintiff, a resident of Texas sued defendants, residents of Texas, for legal malpractice by failing to timely file a claim against the State of Tennessee for damages allegedly incurred in Dickson County, Tennessee. The Trial Court sustained defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

In this divorce action, plaintiff/appellant, George H. Richardson, appealed and presented three issues: (1) "Whether the trial court erred in failing to eliminate appellant's alimony obligation in the form of making the monthly mortgage payment on the marital residence occupied by appellee as well as paying appellee's car payments[,]" (2) "Whether the trial court erred in failing to relieve appellant of his obligation to pay for appellee's attorney's fees[,]" and (3) "Whether the trial court erred in failing to adopt appellant's proposed division of marital property."

Contestants (“appellants”) have appealed from a dismissal of a will contest suit filed by them in the Davidson County Probate Court. Following  a bench trial, the Honorable Joe P. Binkley, Sr., Special Judge, found that no proof had been presented to establish that the decedent was unduly influenced or that he was of unsound mind, and that the will was in fact his proper Last Will and Testament. The contestants' complaint was  dismissed. One of the contestants below has appealed pro se. Appellant's brief fails to comply with T.R.A.P. 27(a) in several ways, one of them being an absence of the statement of the issues. In order to properly dispose of this case, we conclude that the issue presented is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We find that it does not and affirm.

The general partner in a hotel-keeping operation refused to make distributions to the limited partner from the revenues of the venture. The limited partner filed suit against the general partner for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court found that the general partner had breached the partnership agreement, and rendered a partial summary judgment, ordering an immediate distribution to both partners of over $680,000. We affirm.