APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendants appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiffs for the enforcement of a settle ment agreement.

Demetreous Flengas, the husband, and Kimberly Denise Flengas, the wife, were granted an absolute divorce in September 1994 in Hamilton County. Shortly thereafter, the Trial Court entered its memorandum opinion and order which directed the division of the parties' assets and liabilities. It is from this order that the husband appeals.

For a second time we address this matter which concerns Appellant Ron Christian's eligibility for assistance from the petroleum underground storage tank fund, established in T.C.A. § 68-215-110. The Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board (Board), an appellee in this action,1 found Christian ineligible for assistance due to his failure to reestablish fund eligibility by, inter alia, failing to conduct a site check of his property. Upon review in the chancery court, the Board's decision was upheld. For reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

The captioned petitioners filed their “Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Verified Complaint” seeking review of the action of the City Council of Gallatin in regard to the zoning of certain property and for injunctive relief. From an adverse judgment in the Trial Court, one of the petitioners, Phyllis Hovenden, has appealed, presenting the following issues for review:

Two persons injured in a one-car accident sued the driver of the car in which they were riding. After obtaining an essentially worthless judgment against the unknown driver of another car, the passengers perfected this appeal to take issue with the trial court’s decision to permit their driver to rely on a “phantom automobile” defense even though she had not included this defense in her answer. The majority has determined that the trial court properly permitted the driver to assert this defense and to amend her pleadings to conform to the proof. While I concur with the majority’s decision under the circumstances of this case, I have prepared this separate opinion to avoid leaving a mistaken impression that the driver’s answer complied with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03. It did not; however, the error does not undermine the jury’s verdict in this case.

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the Wife/Appellant is entitled to post judgment interest on a judgment of $50,000 awarded her by the decree of divorce entered December 28, 1992.

In this custody dispute, the parties were divorced in 1992, and the mother was granted custody of the parties' minor son. The decree provided that the mother would not remove the child from the State without permission of the Court, but no scheduled visitatoin was ordered. Subsequently, visitation schedules were ordered or agreed upon and in June of 1993 the mother asked permission to move to Florida with the child, which petition was denied. In 1994, the father petitioned for a change of custody and contempt for failure of the mother to allow ordered visitation. The Court refused to change custody, but sentenced the mother to two days in jail for contampt of court, but stayed the sentence indefinitely on the assumption there will be no recurrence of this particular problem. This judgment was entered on December 13, 1994.