COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Rosie Johnson vs. Delia Avery
02A01-9803-CV-00079
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Lamar Fletcher vs. TN Claims Comm.
02A01-9803-BC-00076

Frank Butler vs. Melody Butler
02A01-9807-CH-00184
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Lance Lanier v. Hubert Bane
M2000-03199-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
Plaintiff guest passenger appeals the trial court's denial of recovery in his action against his host driver for injuries suffered in a one car accident. The jury found him to be 50% responsible for his own injuries and upon such verdict the trial court entered judgment for the defendant. We affirm the action of the trial court.

03A01-9810-CV-349
03A01-9810-CV-349
Trial Court Judge: Jerry Kerley, Larry Futrell

Williams vs. 7-11
01A01-9710-CV-00560
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Miglin vs. Miglin
01A01-9802-CH-00080
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

Tucker et al vs. Turner
01A01-9708-CV-00426
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton

Owens vs. Owens vs. Owens
01A01-9709-CH-00471
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain

Schindel vs. Bass
01A01-9711-CV-00655
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

In re: Estate of Harold Jenkins
01A01-9804-PB-00223
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray

Taylor vs. State
01A01-9707-CH-00338

King of Clubs vs. William Gibbons
02A01-9801-CV-00024
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Gary Vick vs. Linda Vick
02A01-9802-CH-00051
Trial Court Judge: John Walton West

Brittney Patterson vs. Jerry Dunn
02A01-9710-CV-00256
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

David Swett, Sr. v. Grace Z. Aleman Swett
M1998-00961-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves the dissolution of a nine-year marriage. Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, the trial court found both parties to be at fault but awarded the divorce to the wife. The court also granted the parties joint custody of their son and divided their property. On this appeal, the wife asserts that the trial court erred by concluding that her conduct contributed to the divorce and by refusing to give her sole custody of the parties' son. Both parties take issue with the manner in which the trial court divided their property. The wife asserts that the trial court erred by classifying the husband's interest in the real property on which his family's restaurant is located as separate property and by failing to award her a portion of the appreciation in the value of his family restaurant business. The husband takes issue with the trial court's refusal to award him certain items of household furnishings. Finally, the wife asserts that she is entitled to post-judgment interest on the judgment used to equalize the distribution of the marital estate, as well as her legal expenses incurred on appeal. We have determined that the trial court's fault determination, joint custody arrangement, and division of marital property are supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and deny the wife's request for appellate legal expenses.

Margaret Parker vs. Kroger Co.
02A01-9812-CV-00373
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

Memphis Credit Union vs. Mary Montgomery
02A01-9810-CV-00286
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

Randall Henley, et al vs. Russell Amacher, et al
M1999-02799-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
This appeal involves an early morning, drunken joyride by four teenagers that ended when their sport utility vehicle overturned. One of the passengers who was injured when he was thrown from the vehicle sued the driver and his father in the Circuit Court for Franklin County seeking $200,000. A jury assessed the passenger's damages and attributed 75% of the fault to the driver and 25% of the fault to the passenger. In accordance with the jury's verdict, the trial court awarded the passenger a $34,125 judgment against the driver and his father. On this appeal, the driver and his father take issue with (1) the allocation of less than 50% of the fault to the passenger, (2) the lack of evidence to support the application of the family purpose doctrine, (3) the awards for permanent impairment and future medical expenses, and (4) the trial court's refusal to give two requested instructions. We have determined that the only reversible error in the proceeding involves the jury's decision to award the passenger $20,000 for future medical expenses. Accordingly, we affirm the jury's verdict as to liability and allocation of fault. With regard to the damage award, we suggest a remittitur which, if accepted, will reduce the passenger's judgment to $19,125.

02A01-9802-CH-00269
02A01-9802-CH-00269
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

Becky Chenault vs. William Carsley
02A01-9710-CV-00255
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

In the matter of S.MC. and J.L.C.
01A01-9807-JV-00358
Trial Court Judge: Andrew J. Shookhoff

Katherine Theresa DeVault, v. James Canon DeVault, Jr.
01-A-01-9806-CV-00270
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This appeal involves a dispute over child support for the parties' two minor children. The trial court denied the Father's petition to modify the support as it had been set in the final decree. In addition, the court placed a lien on two of the Father's properties and awarded fees to the Mother's attorney. On appeal, we affirm the court's decision with regard to child support and attorney fes. However, regarding the lien, we modify the trial court's decision such that a lien remains on only one of the Father's proerties. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed as modified and remand for further proceedings.

Almetter Chalmers vs. Exchange Ins.
02A01-9711-CV-00280
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Stanley Wilson v. Jim Davenport, Tennessee Department of Employment Security and Carrier Air Conditioning
02A01-9712-CH-00301
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Floyd Peete, Jr.

This is an unemployment benefits case. The claimant’s employment was terminated, based on alleged misconduct. His application for employment benefits was denied. After administrative appeals, the chancery court affirmed the denial of benefits. The claimant appeals. We affirm the decision of the chancery court based on the claimant’s failure to timely file his petition for a writ of certiorari.