APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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 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.

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.