Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

The General SessionsCourt of Wilson County granted the wife a divorce after a six month marriage. The court ordered the marital residence sold and the wife paid $2,000 for her attorney's fees and $10,000 to equalize her equity in the property. After the deductions, the balance of the equity was to be split evenly between the parties.

This is a suit to register and enforce a foreign divorce decree. The only issue on appeal is the proper amount of the judgment for delinquent child support.

This is a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under aninsurance policy. Plaintiff, Wright Jewelers, Inc., appeals from the order of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant, Firemen's Fund Insurance Company, d/b/a The American Insurance Company.

This appeal involves a suit to recover on a policy of insurance covering employee dishonesty. Plaintiff, Strings & Things in Memphis, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the chancery court in a nonjury trial that dismissed its suit against defendant, State Auto Insurance Companies. The only issue on appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the findings of the chancellor.

The Defendant, Brenda Fishburn, has appealed from an order denying her motion to set her counterclaim for trial. The motion was filed more than two years after an order had been entered dismissing the counterclaim and approximately 18 months after an agreed compromise decree had been  entered dismissing the claims of all parties to the litigation.

This appeal involves the dismissal of a nine-year-old personal injury action stemming from a collision between a truck and an automobile that was part of a funeral procession. The driver of the automobile and his wife filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County against the owner and driver of the truck. Following two non-suits, the plaintiffs filed their third complaint more than five years after taking their first non-suit. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs assert on this appeal that the trial court’s decision is inconsistent with the “spirit” of the savings statute as recently construed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. We affirm the summary judgment and also find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we remand the case for the determination of damages for a frivolous appeal.

This is an appeal by defendants/appellants from the trial court's order granting plaintiff/appellee's motion for summary judgment and the resulting judgment entered in favor of plaintiff/appellee, C.A. Hobbs, Jr., Inc. ("Hobbs").

This appeal involves a divorce that ended a brief, unhappy marriage. Both the husband and the wife sought a divorce in the Chancery Court for Williamson County. The trial court, sitting without a jury, declared the parties divorced and directed the husband to pay certain pre-divorce debts and to continue making pendente lite support payments until the wife received her share of the increase in the parties’ net worth during the marriage. The trial court later ordered the husband to pay the wife an additional $4,405 for the legal expenses she incurred to compel compliance with her discovery requests. The husband insists on this appeal that the trial court should not have required him to assume the debts the wife incurred prior to the divorce or to pay the wife’s discovery-related legal expenses. We have determined that the evidence supports the trial court’s decision on both issues and, therefore, affirm the judgment

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.

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.