APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We have reviewed appellee's Petition to Rehear. Counsel correctly points out that the Education Improvement Act of 1992 specified certain duties in the County Administration of education. The two sections cited [T.C.A. 49-2- 301(f)(10) and T.C.A. 49-2-203(a)(1)] do refer to "recommendation" of the superintendent to the local board of education. It is the duty of the superintendent to recommend teachers who qualify and the board "elects" such teachers to tenure status as it deems appropriate.

Judith Ann Taylor (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce against Michael Raymond Taylor (“Husband”) and also sought an injunction prohibiting Husband from dissipating marital assets. Husband filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce. The trial court granted Wife the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and awarded her rehabilitative alimony, partial attorney fees, and 60% of the marital assets. Husband appeals and raises the following issues:whether the trial court erred (1) in awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony of $1,300 per month for 60 months; (2) in ordering Husband to pay $20,000 as alimony in solido for Wife’s attorney fees; (3) in ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife’s health insurance coverage; (4) in requiring Husband to maintain a life insurance policy which exceeds the total amount of child support owed; and (5) in dividing the marital property of the parties. Wife submits the additional issue of whether she is due attorney fees on appeal. For the reasons stated below, we find no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

This is the second appeal concerning a husband’s support obligations following the dissolution of a 23-year marriage. The Chancery Court for Williamson County originally directed the husband to pay $1,731 per month in child support and $5,500 per month in spousal support for five years and then $5,000 per month thereafter. On the first appeal, this court remanded the case to the trial court to revisit the child support and spousal support awards. Even though the trial court concluded that the husband’s income had decreased significantly, it increased the husband’s child support to $2,000 per month and left its original spousal support order unchanged. It also awarded the wife judgments for a sizeable spousal support arrearage and a nominal child support arrearage. On this appeal, the husband again takes issue with the amount of his spousal support and child support obligations and also insists that he is entitled to retroactive relief on his spousal support arrearage and to the lifting of the injunction with regard to his 401k plan. We vacate the child support and spousal support awards and remand them to the trial court for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

This appeal results from a suit brought by Normal Mayes and his wife, Ruth Mayes, against Claude Yow and his wife, Frances Yow, Willard Scarbro and his wife, Cleo Scarbro, who was added as a party Defendant subsequent to the filing of the original complaint, and Partners & Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs/Appellants, Holland D. Lane, Cynthia Lane, Bobby Joe Knight, and Kay 2 Grimes, appeal the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint, finding that appellants lacked standing to bring an action under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(a)(2) and that the use of their land by defendants/appellees, Willie and Dorothy Barr, as a tire landfill was a prior non-conforming use. For reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal involves the enforcement of the restrictive covenants in a Nashville subdivision. After two residents began to construct improvements on their property without first obtaining approval of the subdivision’s architectural committee, the homeowners association filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking injunctive relief to enforce the architectural control provisions in the subdivision’s restrictive covenants. The trial court heard the case without a jury and issued an injunction directing the residents to cease the construction and to restore their property to a condition consistent with the subdivision covenants. The residents have appealed. Since neither party has filed a verbatim transcript of the proceedings or a statement of the evidence, we have reviewed the papers filed in the trial court and have determined that they contain no basis for reversing the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Michael A. Thompson, a prisoner in the custody of Tennessee Department of Correction has appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his petition for certiorari for judicial review of a decision of the Tennessee Board of Paroles denying parole.

This is an automobile personal injury case. The defendant, David Shorter, Jr., appeals
from the judgment of the trial court in a bench trial awarding plaintiff, Sylvia Hudson, $9,000.00
damages. Shorter’s responsibility for the accident was stipulated, and the trial concerned only
the issue of damages.

Plaintiff  Raymond Mitchell sues Defendant Camelot Utility District of Hawkins County, Tennessee. He alleges that Camelot, in acquiring a quit claim deed from him conveying two tracts of land, one that contains an artesian well and the other equipment in connection with distribution of water to the adjacent area.  He contends that as a consideration for the quit claim deed, John Valetta, President of Camelot, represented to him that Camelot would provide water taps for two of his lots free of charge and, upon acquisition of an alternate water source, would re-convey the quit claimed lots to him.

This is a suit brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act. It was brought by Plaintiff Barbara J. Hand, Administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Charles D. Hand, against his employer, Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and assessed damages in the amount of $3,250,000. The Defendant appeals, raising nine separate issues. Although many do not merit a protracted discussion, others raise substantial questions.

This is a libel suit brought by a physician against a health maintenance organization and related health insurance entities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the statute of limitations. The lawsuit involves allegedly false information reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. In an issue of first impression, we hold that each dissemination of the allegedly defamatory information by the Data Bank gives rise to a separate cause of action. The grant of summary judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded.