APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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."

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.

The captioned defendant, Dr. Wayne Wells, was dismissed by nonsuit and is not involved in this appeal. The remaining defendants have been granted interlocutory appeal from the order of the Trial Judge overruling their motion for summary judgment.

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.