COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Estate of John Acuff, Sr., et al vs. Brenda O'Linger
M1999-00680-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
The singular dispositive question on this appeal is whether or not two deeds, purportedly executed by the late John E. Acuff, Sr., conveying certain property to Brenda O'Linger, bear the forged signature of John E. Acuff, Sr. An advisory chancery jury, acting under "preponderance of the evidence" instructions, held that the signatures were forged thereby voiding the two deeds. The chancellor adopted, without comment, the findings of the advisory jury and entered judgment for the plaintiffs voiding the two deeds. Defendant appeals and upon consideration of the record we reverse the chancellor.

Daniel White vs. State ex rel Brenda Armstrong
M1999-00713-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Betty Adams Green
This appeal involves the State's liability to repay child support payments made by a man who had voluntarily legitimated a child he believed to be his own. After this court directed the Davidson County Juvenile Court to grant him prospective relief from the legitimation order in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(4), the man requested the juvenile court to order the State and the child's biological mother to reimburse him for the child support payments he had made following the entry of the legitimation order. The juvenile court denied the request on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the State to reimburse "overpaid child support." We have determined that the juvenile court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims and, therefore, affirm the juvenile court's order.

Douglas DuBois vs. Rosemary DuBois
M1999-00330-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
Plaintiff/Appellant, Douglas Robert DuBois, and Defendant/Appellee, Rosemary Ann DuBois, are parents of two minor children, Caitlin Michel DuBois and Thomas Jackson DuBois. The Decree of Divorce was entered on November 5, 1998, following two days of trial that occurred on the 8th and 9th of October 1998. Both parties filed T.R.C.P. Rule 59 motions to alter or amend the final decree which, in effect, sought a redetermination by the trial judge of almost everything in issue. All of these motions were heard on May 12, 1999, after which, on June 15, 1999, the trial judge entered an order determinative of these Rule 59 motions. From this order, Plaintiff, Douglas Robert DuBois, appeals. We affirm the trial judge.

Sammartano vs. Sammartano
M1999-00415-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
In this divorce case, the defendant/wife appeals complaining of an inequitable division of marital assets, an inadequate award of rehabilitative alimony and the denial of attorney fees. As modified herein, we affirm the decision of the trial court

Farmers & Merchants Bank, a Tennessee Corporation, v. Midway Supply Company, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation
M1999-00147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Walton

This appeal involves a suit to recover money advanced by a construction lender to a building supply company to pay for building supplies which the bank mistakenly thought had been delivered to the bank’s debtor. Plaintiff, Farmers & Merchants Bank (Bank) sued defendant, Midway Supply Company, Inc., (Midway) to recover the sums advanced after Midway failed to deliver the supplies and applied the advanced funds to pay other accounts of the Bank’s debtor. From the judgment of the Circuit Court awarding judgment to Bank for the advanced funds less certain credit, Midway has appealed.

Karuna T. Soni, et al., v. Kenneth P. Tully, et al.
M2000-00594-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

This extraordinary appeal involves an automobile collision. The driver of the automobile that was struck from behind and her husband filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court for Davidson
County against the driver and record owner of the automobile that struck her. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the driver’s liability. The defendants applied for an extraordinary appeal after the trial court declined to grant them an interlocutory appeal. We have determined this is a proper case for an extraordinary appeal and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a partial summary judgment because of the existence of material factual disputes regarding liability. Accordingly, pursuant to Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b),1 we reverse the partial summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed.
 

Winstead vs. Goodlark Reg. Med. Ctr.
M1997-00209-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

Donnie Shawn Julian v. Lisa Carol Julian
M1997-00236-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John B. Melton

This appeal involves a custody dispute over twin daughters born after their parents separated following a brief marriage. The father filed for divorce in the Putnam County General Sessions Court shortly after learning that the mother was pregnant, and the mother counterclaimed for divorce and for sole custody of the unborn children. Following a bench trial, the general sessions court granted the father a divorce based on the mother’s inappropriate marital conduct, awarded the father sole custody of the children, and directed the mother to pay child support. On this appeal, the mother asserts that the general sessions court’s decision interferes with her constitutional right to make primary care-taking decisions for her children, that she is comparatively more fit than the father to be the custodial parent, and that the general sessions court should have awarded joint custody. We have determined that the custody arrangement does not impermissibly interfere with the mother’s parental rights and that the evidence fully supports the general sessions court’s custody decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment awarding sole custody to the children’s father. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the General Sessions Court Affirmed and Remanded
 

In re: Estate of Marguerite Mongold Cranor
M1997-00231-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

This appeal involves a dispute over a sizeable estate. After learning that they had been excluded from their relative’s will, thirteen of the testatrix’s heirs challenged the will in the Chancery Court for Sumner County on the grounds of improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence. The proponents of the will asserted that the contestants lacked standing because their challenge, even if successful, would only revive an earlier will from which they had likewise been excluded. The trial court found that the contestants had standing but, following a bench trial, determined that the contestants had failed to prove their improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, or undue influence claims. On this appeal, the contestants take issue with the decision to uphold the will; while the proponents take issue with the conclusion that the contestants had standing to challenge the will. We have determined that the contestants had standing to challenge the will and that the trial court properly determined that the will should be admitted to probate in solemn form. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded.
 

Venessa Lynn Totty v. Michael Alan Totty - Concurring
W1999-02426-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

I concur with the results reached by the majority in this case. With respect to the issue of counseling, I agree with the majority that the statute has become inapplicable in the present case due to the child having reached majority. I write separately because of my concern that the majority
opinion might be interpreted as limiting a trial court’s discretion to order counseling to that specifically set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-101(e)(1), the text of which is set forth in the majority opinion. I interpret the statute to be permissive rather than prohibitive. For example, I can envision a trial court ordering a non-custodial parent to undergo counseling for anger management as a condition of exercising visitation rights. I do not believe the aforementioned statute prohibits this.

Jean Straub vs. Jason Roberts
W1998-00854-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

Louise Holder vs. First TN Bank
W1998-00890-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Benham

Peggy Shephard vs. Wal-Mart
W1998-00903-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

Wendy Byrne vs. Steven Byrne
W1999-01492-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford

F. G.Sutton vs. J.W. Sutton
E1999-00302-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney

R. E. Sharp, Jr. vs. Campbell Co. Bd. of Education & Campbell Co., TN
E1999-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard

Basily vs. Rain, Inc., et al
M1998-00917-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

Davis, et al vs. Eubanks and DHS
M1999-00066-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Frances Jean Hernandez v. Philip Andreus Hernandez
M1999-00967-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

The appellant owned an undivided one-third interest in a residence prior to his marriage to the appellee. They occupied the residence for about two years, during which time the evidence reveals that the appellee engaged herself in constant repairs, thereby increasing the liveability and value of the residence. She was awarded 75% of the increase in the value of this residence during the marriage, of which the appellant complains.

Amos vs. Vanderbilt
M1999-00998-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Estate of Divinny vs. Wheeler Bonding Co.
M1999-00678-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

Crowell vs. Brown
M1999-00505-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney

Deborah Ann Holland vs. Jason Keith Holland
E1999-00586-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
In Re: Estate of Homer Haskell Mills, deceased Ronald Dean Mills vs. Peggy Sue Posey, et al

William A. Harvey vs. Lenoir City Utilities Board
E1999-00601-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman

John Constantine, II et al vs. Miller Ind., Inc. et al
E1999-01575-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III