APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a domestic relations dispute involving money only. The trial court held that a certificate of deposit and one investment account were the separate property of Husband and declined to award Wife alimony or the total amount of her attorney fees. She appeals and presents these issues for review.

This appeal involves the validity of certain transactions entered into by the holder of a power of attorney. The trial court set aside the transactions finding that the attorney in fact had failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence which arose in light of these self-benefitting transactions. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Megan Harmon (“Megan” or “Appellant”), minor child born during the marriage of Plaintiff/Appellee, Todd Harmon (“Mr. Harmon” or “Appellee”) and Defendant Janet Harmon (“Mrs. Harmon”), by and through her Guardian Ad Litem (G.A.L.), appeals the decision of the trial court which found that Appellee was not the biological father of Appellant, and incorporated into the decree of divorce the marital dissolution agreement in which the parties agreed Appellee would have no further obligation to the child.

The parental relationship between Tamra Viar and her daughter, Katelyn, was terminated by the Juvenile Court, the propriety of which she presents for review. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is de novo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.

This is a divorce case. In the original divorce, years ago, the wife was awarded shares of stock from the husband’s p ension fund. Subs equently, the pension fund was distributed to the husband, with no monies going to the wife. In this action, the trial court awarded the wife a judgment for the value o f the stock at the time of the trial co urt’s order. The husband appeals. We affirm.

This controversy may, perhaps, be described as a boundary dispute. The development of Riverview Estates Subdivision began in 1971 with the recordation of a plat which provided for a cul-de-sac fifty feet in width centered on the West boundary of Lot 23.

Respondent Laurie Watson Pawlakos (the Wife) appeals the trial court’s order requiring her to return certain funds to the estate of her deceased husband, John T. Pawlakos (the Decedent). For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant Thomas R. Throneberry appeals the trial court’s judgment in the amount of $6,000 entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Allen E. Hasty after a jury trial. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This action is based on a series of contracts executed in the sale of an industrial dust control and laundry business. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the claims of the sellers, held that one of the sellers had breached one of the agreements but that the buyer had failed to prove its damages, and awarded the buyer attorneys’ fees. We reverse the dismissal of the sellers’ action and modify the award of attorneys’ fees.

Benton County appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to H & W Environmental Services, Inc. (H&W) and Waste Management, Inc. of Tennessee (Waste Management) and denying summary judgment to Benton County. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Plaintiff, Jeri St. John (“St. John” or “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment 2 in favor of Defendant, Beer Permit Board (“Beer Board” or “Appellee”) denying St. John a beer permit for her business “Jeri’s” n/k/a “The Foxy Lady.”

In this child custody action, the minor children’s stepmother sought custody after the death of her husband, who had been the custodial parent. The natural mother counter-claimed for custody , and the Trial Judge awarded custody to the natural mother. The stepmother has appealed.