APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a will contest in which the contestants have appealed from a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the will.

The majority has reached the correct result in this case. I have prepared this separate opinion for two reasons. First, we should state clearly that the contestants’ trial counsel should not be faulted for requesting the trial court to use a Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction that the Tennessee Supreme Court had disapproved only one month before trial. Second, we should conclude without equivocation that the record contains material evidence upon which the jury could have determined that the beneficiary had clearly and convincingly rebutted the presumption of undue influence arising from her confidential relationship with Mrs. Haney.

This appeal involves a personal injury action in which the plaintiff sought to file a separate suit against previously unknown defendants in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 (1994). The Fifth Circuit Court for Davidson County granted the new defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was filed one day late. The plaintiff asserts on this appeal that the trial court erred by failing to extend the time for filing his amended complaint by three days in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.05. We have determined that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.05 does not extend the deadline for taking the actions required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court awarded petitioner/appellant's attorney a reasonable attorney's fee.

This case involves the ownership of the mechanical royalty rights to a catalogue of songs written by the appellant, Earl Montgomery. The appellee, Kayla Nicole Nunley, contends that her late husband, Billy Gene Nunley, purchased the right to collect those royalties from Mr. Montgomery in 1975. Mr. Montgomery testified that he never sold the rights, and that he did not even know Mr. Nunley. He claims that the Nunleys were guilty of converting the funds derived from his ownership rights.

This is a dispute over a contract to provide garbage and industrial waste collection in three Wayne County cities. The contractor sued the three cities for failing to prevent a rival contractor from providing the same services to some residents of each city and sued the rival contractor for inducing a breach of contract, for misrepresentation, and for interference with business relations. After a bench trial the Chancery Court of Wayne County dismissed the complaint. We affirm.