APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The divorced mother of a minor child claimed that her former husband and his employer conspired to fraudulently understate the husband’s income, in order to defeat her attempts to have his child support obligation increased to an appropriate amount. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We reverse.

Christopher Scott Wells (“Father”) and Betty Sue Wells (“Mother”) divorced in October 1997. By the terms of their Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA), the parties had joint custody of the two children with Mother as primary custodian. Shortly after the MDA was accepted by the court, Father changed his mind. He sought custody of the children based on Mother’s relationships with men. The trial court found no change in circumstances and left custody with Mother. Because of evidence of the children’s altered behavior during their visit with Father, we find it necessary to remand the case to the trial court for a determination of the best interests of the children, including the comparative fitness of the parents at the time of the hearing on remand.

'This is an appeal by Gerald W. Smith (“Plaintiff”) under T.R.A.P. Rule 3 alleging error in the Trial Court’s granting Summary Judgment to Defendants/Appellees, Harriman Utility Board (“HUB”), HUB General Manager Richard A. Hall (“Hall”), and the City of Harriman, Tennessee (“Harriman”). Plaintiff was an employee of HUB, and after his employment was terminated filed suit for breach of contract, procurement of breach of contract in violation of T.C.A. 2 § 47-50-109, retaliatory discharge, and promissory estoppel. The Circuit Court for Roane County entered summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.