APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff filed two identical actions only days apart in Shelby County and Carroll County against the same defendants. The plaintiff non-suited and then re-filed the Carroll County action. Amended complaints were filed in both actions seeking to add a defendant. The plaintiff then asked the Shelby County trial court to transfer the action pending in Shelby County to Carroll County for consolidation. The defendant who was added argued that the Shelby County trial court should dismiss the case for improper venue and that the Carroll County trial court should grant his motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The Shelby County trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to transfer to Carroll County and the Carroll County trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The added defendant appealed. We reverse the Carroll County trial court’s denial of summary judgment and its acceptance of the Shelby County case for consolidation and remand to the Carroll County trial court to determine whether the Shelby County amended complaint was intended to supplement the original complaint or to completely replace it, and whether a named Shelby County defendant was still a defendant in the Shelby County suit when the amended complaint was filed, in order to ascertain if venue was proper as to the added defendant.

This appeal arises from an action for divorce filed by plaintiff-Wife in the Crockett County Chancery Court. Following defendant-Husband’s answer and counter-complaint for divorce, the parties entered into a consent order for support and other relief. The court entered an order granting divorce and approving the parties’ agreement. Subsequently, the court entered an order awarding Wife alimony in futuro and a significant amount of the marital assets. The court also found that stock in a corporation was a marital asset and included the stock in Husband’s award of marital assets. Husband appeals both the award of alimony and the court’s characterization of the corporation stock as a marital asset. Tenn.R.App.P. Rule 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
 

James M. Lane, Jr. appeals by permission of the trial and appellate courts. Indicted for two counts of aggravated perjury, he alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reverse the district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Because the prosecutor relied upon improper grounds for denying diversion, we reverse the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion in denying diversion. We remand to the trial court with instructions that the prosecutor enter into a memorandum of understanding for pretrial diversion with the defendant.