APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I respectfully dissent from part I of the majority opinion holding that the appellants have standing to maintain this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act. In my opinion this case does not involve present rights that have accrued under presently existing facts. See Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn. App. 1992).

Appellant D. Dean Graves ("Graves") appeals the chancellor's decision requiring 2 Graves to specifically perform a contract by purchasing an $85,000 parcel of real estate offered for sale by the Appellees, Donald L. Mott ("Mott") and Murl Kennamore ("Kennamore").

Indian Hills ClubHomeowners' Association ("Plaintiff"), filed suit against Clayton and Cindy Cooper ("Defendants"), seeking an injunction prohibiting Defendants from building a driveway extension/parking pad and walkway onto their property. The trial court granted Plaintiff a permanent injunction, holding that the proposed construction would violate certain restrictions of record that prohibited any construction or improvements without approval from the Board of Directors of the Indian Hills  Homeowners' Association. Defendants have raised three issues for our consideration: (1) whether the Plaintiff's denial of Defendants' application and approval rested upon a lawful and legitimate basis; (2) whether the  Board's decision to deny the application was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of control; and (3) whether it would be unfair and inequitable to enforce the restrictive covenant. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the decision of the trial court and order that the injunction be dissolved.

This case comes before us as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to T.R.A.P. 9. The 1This suit was originally filed by a total of fifteen limited partnerships. The claims of the five Keystone Partnerships; to wit: Keystone 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Keystone 1983-2 Oil an Gas Drilling Partnership; Keystone 1984-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Keystone 1984-2 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; and Midco 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership, are not at issue in this appeal. 2 Appellant, Citizens Bank of Tennessee (hereinafter "Citizens"), appeals the chancellor's denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiffs below, a group of ten
limited partnerships; to wit: Exchequer Associates Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership 1982-1; Exchequer 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Exchequer 1983-2 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnerships; Exchequer Synergy 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; First Energy 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; First Energy 1984-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Overlord 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Overlord II 1984-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Overlord III 1984 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; and Overlord IV 1984 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership (hereinafter "Partnerships").1

Kenneth O. Burnett and Vickie S. Burnett ("plaintiffs") filed suit in the Davidson County Circuit Court against Frank E. Krisle, individually and d/b/a Elite Electric ("defendant") seeking damages resulting from a fire caused by defendant's negligence that destroyed plaintiffs' home. The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $90,733.56, reduced by a finding that plaintiffs were ten percent (10%) at fault. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal defendant has presented three issues for our consideration: (1) whether there was any material evidence in the record to support the jury verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant a new trial or a remittitur; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to present a witness for testifying after defendant had rested his case. We find no error and affirm.

Lessie Blankenship ("plaintiff") filed suit in the Circuit Court of Bedford County against Century Health Services, Inc. ("Century" or "defendant"), seeking damages for breach of a commercial lease. Following a bench trial, the court awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $44,943.80 for rent due under the lease, costs incurred by plaintiff in seeking to relet the premises, and attorney fees in the amount of 15% of the amount of the judgment. On appeal, Century presents five issues for review: Whether the trial court erred (1) in finding that Century had assumed the lease between plaintiff and South Central Home Health, Inc. (?South Central”), the original lessee; (2) in concluding that Century had not properly terminated the lease; (3) in finding that plaintiff had properly mitigated her damages; (4) in awarding plaintiff damages for future rent under the lease; and (5) in awarding plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of 15% of plaintiff's judgment. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

This appeal involves an acrimonious post-divorce dispute over child support and visitation. After their divorce in 1990, the mother filed several petitions in the Circuit Court for Warren County seeking to hold the father in contempt. The father also filed several petitions to modify his child support because of his inability to pay. This appeal involves the denial of the father’s latest petition for modification and the summary suspension of his visitation for not paying child support. We have determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s conclusion that the circumstances with regard to the father’s income have not changed and that the father’s visitation should be suspended. Accordingly, we vacate the order dismissing the father’s petition and remand the case for further proceedings.

The defendant, Sherrie Marie Hann, has appealed from a non-jury judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Shelter Insurance Companies for $5,000 paid to defendant by mistake. As indicated in the caption, this was a proceeding in Chancery Court.

The defendant, Leslie Charles Morey, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court awarding to the plaintiff, Shasta Mead Morey, an absolute divorce, custody of a minor child, child support, a share of marital property, and $3,000.00 attorneys' fees.

The captioned plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing his suit against the captioned defendants for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding the constitutionality of application of certain statutes to plaintiff and certain actions, practices and policies of the defendants.