APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Charles Chandler Brown, Sr., (Father), appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to modify the custody arrangement previously agreed to by the parties and set forth i their final divorce decree. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the trial court's judgment with certain modifications.

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I write separately to express my concern with the language on page 10 of that opinion which states that, “[i]n order to be compelling enough to warrant the dramatic remedy of changed custody, the change of circumstances must be such that ‘continuation of the adjudicated custody will substantially harm the child.’” I acknowledge that this language appears in Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 834 (Tenn. App. 1995), an opinion of the middle section of this court. However, I further note that Wall cited Contreras v. Ward, 831 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. App. 1991). Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290. The court also cited with approval from Sartoph v. Sartoph, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976), wherein the Maryland Court of Special Appeals stated that “[t]he custody of children should not be disturbed unless there is some strong reason affecting the welfare of the child. To justify a change in custody, the change in conditions must have occurred which affects the welfare of the child and not that of the parents.”

The facts of this case are relative (sic) simple. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase a house from the defendant. When the house was complete, excepting some "punch list items" the parties entered into a second contract. By the terms of the second contract, the defendant was to place $5,000.00 in escrow with the monies to be used toward the completion of the "punch list items. Part of the work was compleed on the "punch list" items.

The facts of this case, as material to this appeal, are relatively simple. The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a hotel in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The contract was a standard 2
Associated General Contractors ConstructionManager contract styled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager." The agreement contains two provisions that are germane to the issues under consideration here.

A prisoner at the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, claiming that the Board of Paroles had acted illegally in revoking his parole, and in refusing to recondiser the revocation. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board of Paroles.  We affirm.

This case involves a contract arbitration clause and the Tennessee Open Meetings Act (Act). Defendant, Health Partners, Inc. (HP), appeals the Chancellor’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration and granting the Plaintiff’s, Dr. Bob T. Souder, M.D. (Souder), motion for judgment on the pleadings.