APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the dismissal of a nine-year-old personal injury action stemming from a collision between a truck and an automobile that was part of a funeral procession. The driver of the automobile and his wife filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County against the owner and driver of the truck. Following two non-suits, the plaintiffs filed their third complaint more than five years after taking their first non-suit. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs assert on this appeal that the trial court’s decision is inconsistent with the “spirit” of the savings statute as recently construed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. We affirm the summary judgment and also find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we remand the case for the determination of damages for a frivolous appeal.

This is an appeal by defendants/appellants from the trial court's order granting plaintiff/appellee's motion for summary judgment and the resulting judgment entered in favor of plaintiff/appellee, C.A. Hobbs, Jr., Inc. ("Hobbs").

This appeal involves a divorce that ended a brief, unhappy marriage. Both the husband and the wife sought a divorce in the Chancery Court for Williamson County. The trial court, sitting without a jury, declared the parties divorced and directed the husband to pay certain pre-divorce debts and to continue making pendente lite support payments until the wife received her share of the increase in the parties’ net worth during the marriage. The trial court later ordered the husband to pay the wife an additional $4,405 for the legal expenses she incurred to compel compliance with her discovery requests. The husband insists on this appeal that the trial court should not have required him to assume the debts the wife incurred prior to the divorce or to pay the wife’s discovery-related legal expenses. We have determined that the evidence supports the trial court’s decision on both issues and, therefore, affirm the judgment

This is a proceeding for judicial review of the action of the Metropolitan Council, the elected legislative body of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, in refusing to concur in the action of the Metropolitan Planning Commission approving a "Planned Unit Development." The Trial Court reversed the action, and the City filed notice of its "intention to appeal" which, in the absence of challenge, will be treated as a notice of appeal.

This is a suit to invalidate an annexation ordinance of the City of Murfreesboro. The plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of his suit, although neither party questioned the adequacy of the description of the land to be annexed. On October 26, 1994, this Court filed an opinion pointing out the infirmities of the ordinance and remanded to allow such infirmities to be remedied.

Net Realty Holding Trust ("NET") the owners of commercial property in Hermitage, Tennessee, brought an action to collect rent after the tenants, James and Dorothy Maggart, (doing business as "The Video Place") surrendered the premises. The Davidson County Chancery Court held that NET was estopped from collecting rent through the end of the lease term.

Defendant, City of Lawrenceburg, has appealed from the trial court's finding that the proximate cause of the accident in which plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages was the negligence of the City of Lawrenceburg's agent and employee, Officer George L. Barturen.

In this dispute between plaintiff borrower and defendant lender, the Trial Court entered summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

In this divorce case the appellant attacks a divorce decree entered nunc pro tunc and also raises issues relating to the property division, alimony, and attorney's fees. The appellee attacks the court's division of property in accordance with an antenuptial agreement. We affirm.

The plaintiff in the trial court claimed title to a disputed area of land by adverse possession. The chancellor found that the disputed property was not within the calls of the plaintiff's deed and that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prescriptive title by twenty years of adverse possession. We affirm.