APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this dispute between plaintiff borrower and defendant lender, the Trial Court entered summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

In this divorce case the appellant attacks a divorce decree entered nunc pro tunc and also raises issues relating to the property division, alimony, and attorney's fees. The appellee attacks the court's division of property in accordance with an antenuptial agreement. We affirm.

This is a proceeding for judicial review of the action of the Metropolitan Council, the elected legislative body of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, in refusing to concur in the action of the Metropolitan Planning Commission approving a "Planned Unit Development." The Trial Court reversed the action, and the City filed notice of its "intention to appeal" which, in the absence of challenge, will be treated as a notice of appeal.

This is a suit to invalidate an annexation ordinance of the City of Murfreesboro. The plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of his suit, although neither party questioned the adequacy of the description of the land to be annexed. On October 26, 1994, this Court filed an opinion pointing out the infirmities of the ordinance and remanded to allow such infirmities to be remedied.

Net Realty Holding Trust ("NET") the owners of commercial property in Hermitage, Tennessee, brought an action to collect rent after the tenants, James and Dorothy Maggart, (doing business as "The Video Place") surrendered the premises. The Davidson County Chancery Court held that NET was estopped from collecting rent through the end of the lease term.

Defendant, City of Lawrenceburg, has appealed from the trial court's finding that the proximate cause of the accident in which plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages was the negligence of the City of Lawrenceburg's agent and employee, Officer George L. Barturen.

The plaintiff in the trial court claimed title to a disputed area of land by adverse possession. The chancellor found that the disputed property was not within the calls of the plaintiff's deed and that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prescriptive title by twenty years of adverse possession. We affirm.