APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Daniel P. Taylor (“claimant”) filed this suit against the State of Tennessee (?defendant” or “State”) in the Tennessee Claims Commission for damages he allegedly sustained due to the malpractice of his court- appointed attorney. The Claims Commission granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the commissioner erred in so doing. We find no error and affirm.

The Probate Court of Putnam County dismissed a claim against the estate of Rupert O. Newman because the claimant lacked standing to make the claim. We affirm.

The determinative issue on appeal is whether the appeals should be dismissed because the appellant did not file notice of the appeal with the clerk of the appellant court designated in the notice of appeal.

In this divorce action, the husband appeals from the Trial Court's determination of the classificatin of property as marital property and the division of the marital estate.

The captioned plaintiff has appealed from an order of the Trial Court reading as follows: This matter came to be heard on June 2, 1995, upon the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants, Tennessee Department of Labor and Al Bodie, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor. Upon consideration of the pleadings filed and the argument of counsel, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction as the petition for judicial review was not filed within sixty days of the final agency action as required by T.C.A. §4-5-322. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Costs shall be taxed to the petitioner. On appeal, plaintiff presents a single issue as follows: Did the Chancery Court err in dismissing this matter for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the complaint was not timely filed?

This case involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the conservator of an estate. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove a breach of fiduciary duty. We find that the trial court misapplied the burden of proof and reverse the trial court’s decision.

The issues raised in this divorce case involve the award of alimony, attorney’s fees, and discretionary costs. We modify the lower court’s judgment to delete the award of alimony in solido. Otherwise, we affirm.