APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The purpose of this litigation was to establish the boundary line between property owned by the Plaintiff, Bradley Mark Butler, and the defendants, Prince E. Spradlin and Sylvia S. Spradlin. Each party presented several witnesses and exhibits including the testimony of their respective surveyors. Upon completion of the evidence, the chancellor made findings of fact including a finding that the plaintiff had established his title by a clear preponderance of the evidence. The court accepted the survey of Eddie Coleman, the surveyor who testified in behalf of the plaintiff, and established the property line according to the Coleman survey.

This case originated i the trial court as a boundary line dispute. Before we examine the merits of the issues raised on appeal, however, it is necessary for us to address a preliminary issue, i.e., was a notice of appeal timely filed. If a notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Rule 4, Tennessee Rule s of Appellate Procedur e .

This action was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover a prorata share of monies they were required to pay on a guaranty agreement where in the defendants were co-guarantors. The trial court found that  there were three co-guarantors, Mr. Squibb, James H. Widener and Ted C. Smith (defendant).  He apportioned liabilit y equally among the three.  The court found that the purported signature of Ms. Smith on the guaranty agreement was not her signature.  The case was dismissed as to the defendant, Rose E. Smith.  No appeal was taken from the action of the court dismissing the case as to Ms. Smith.  Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs, John P. Squibb and wife Martha Jo Squibb, in the amount of $45, 402.04 plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum from April 10, 1991 to April 9, 1996, in the amount of $22, 701.02 for a total judgment of $68, 103.06.  A like judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, Widener.  From these judgments, the defendant appeals.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Georgeanne M. Hofer (“Wife”) filed suit for divorce in the Chancery Court of Shelby County against James P. Hofer (“Husband”) seeking a divorce, division of marital property and alimony. Following a bench trial the chancellor awarded Wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. In addition, he awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony for three years, ordered Husband to pay a portion of Wife’s fees and expenses as alimony in solido and divided the m arital property between the parties.

This is an action for damages for personal injury and the negligent, mailicious, and wrongful destruction of real and personal property of the plaintiff, Harry Gray Smith. Plaintiff filed suit in the Chancery Court for Knox County alleging that the defendant destroyed three pieces of his property, located at 1417 Magnolia Avenue, 1421 Magnoli Avenue, and 400 Winona Street North, without preper notice. Plaintiff claimed that, not withstanding a "No Trepassing" sign he had erected on the premises, employees of the City destroyed the structure without service of any final condemnation or demlition notice. He further asserts that the defendant refused to allow him to remove medical equipment from one of the structures in which he was living. He further alleged that as a result of the demolition and verbal threats of bodily harm which he claims were made by agents of the defendant, laintiff suffered a heart attack necessitating hospitilization.

Appellant, Reginald Fentress (Fentress), appeals from the summaryjudgment entered
by the trial court in favor of the appellee, Memphis Housing Authority (MHA). The issue before us is whether the trial court was correct in doing so upon finding, as a matter of law, that Fentress was not entitled to a grievance hearing prior to his termination of employment with MHA. For the reasons expressed hereafter, we affirm.

The issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff sued the defendants alleging he was wrongfully evicted from property located at 3211 Ashwood, Memphis, Tennessee. He further alleged that the defendants were in further violation of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act set forth at T.C.A. § 66-28-101 et seq. as follows: § 66-28-501 (noncompliance with rental agreement by landlord); § 66- 28-502 (failure to supply essential services) and § 66-28-504 (unlawful ouster, exclusion, or diminution of service).