APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

In this case the husband has appealed the trial judge's award of $14,750 to the wife as her share of the marital property. The trial judge made the following findings: that the husband's property had increased in value during the marriage in the amount, when added to the value of some property acquired by the parties, of $34,000; that the cattle acquired by the parties had a negative value of $4,500, leaving a net value of $29,500; that the wife had made a contribution to the preservation and appreciation of the property; that the wife had a greater need than the husband; and that the husband had a greater ability to produce income in the future. Taking the net increase in the marital estate of $29,500 the trial judge then awarded half of it to the wife.

The Circuit Court of Sumner County awarded the purchaser of a home a judgment against the sellers and their real estate agent, for deceptive practices as defined in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Because we find that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the plaintiff suffered any ascertainable harm from a deceptive act, we reverse.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Gloria and Edward Keene, from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to defendant/appellee, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Cracker Barrel").

The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Tennessee Jaycees and the other appellees, on the ground that the statute of limitations had passed prior to the filing of the appellants' wrongful death complaint against them. Because we do not find that the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the trial court.

In this divorce case, the defendant/wife has appealed from that portion of the divorce decree which granted to the plaintiff/husband sole custody of the daughter of the parties, aged 4 1/2 years at the time of judgment, 5 years at the present time.