ÿWPCì …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏB)ìDC AMXU*¥ýÏ D3Ì·ÿv~¶ 0@4vÓt AOGÆ– 0D\ D/  BϘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÂÃEÄÅVÆÇÈDÉÊÓ€Öíb¸ ÿÿÿÿÿÏÿ3|xÖ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òMay€28,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIvy€testified€that,€in€order€to€determine€the€fair€market€value€of€the€accounts€receivable,€heÏhad€used€an€historical€approach€based€upon€the€actual€billing€experience€of€the€former€partnership.€ÏUnder€this€approach,€Ivy€first€established€a€percentage€allowance€for€bad€debt€by€taking€theÏhistoric€ratio€of€bad€debts€to€gross€billings€for€1989€and€1990.€€Then,€to€arrive€at€the€fair€marketÏvalue€of€the€accounts,€he€multiplied€the€bad€debt€allowance€by€the€gross€billings€of€the€formerÏpartnership€for€1991.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€œJACKSON›Ìà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€›ÌÌóóÌÌMARTIN€H.€AUSSENBERG€€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Equity€No.€100699„1ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€')&;+'h|à|` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBRUCE€S.€KRAMER,€DAVID€J.€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€Ìò òCOCKE,€AND€BOROD€AND€€€€€€ó ó€ò òà àà à)à àó ó02A01„9411„CH„00262ò òÌKRAMER,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellees.à àò òà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€C.€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€œDefendants/Appelleesóó:òò›ÌóóÌStanley€J.€Kline€à àà àà àà àJ.€Alan€HanoverÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€œJ.›ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€vOXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà àIn€this€case,€œPlaintiff,›€Martin€H.€Aussenberg€(ð ðAussenbergðð),€appeals€œthe€trial€courtððs€›Ïvaluation€of€his€former€partnershipððs€work„in„progress€and€accounts€receivable€as€well€as€itsÏfinding€regarding€Aussenbergððs€interest€in€the€partnershipððs€accounts€receivable€and€work„in„progress.€€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àIn€March€1988,€Aussenberg€and€œDefendants,›€Bruce€S.€Kramer€(ð ðKramerðð)€and€David€J.ÏCocke€(ð ðCockeðð),€formed€a€partnership€for€the€practice€of€law€under€the€name€of€Borod€andÏKramer.€€€In€June€1991,€Aussenberg€was€asked€to€leave€the€partnership.€€A€dispute€subsequentlyÏarose€concerning€the€value€of€the€partnershipððs€assets€and€the€percentage€of€those€assets€owed€toÏAussenberg.€œ€Aussenberg›€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€œasking€òòò òinteró ó›Ïò òaliaó óóó€that€he€receive€œone€third›€of€all€œof€the›€partnershipððs€assets.€€Kramer€and€Cocke€denied€thatÏAussenberg€was€entitled€to€a€œone„third›€share€of€accounts€receivable€and€work„in„progress€andÏmaintained€that€Borod€and€Kramer€historically€had€determined€each€partner's€interest€in€accountsÏreceivable€and€work„in„progress€according€to€a€formula€that€took€into€account€each€partnerððsÏorigination,€œproductivity,›€and€collections.€€Ìà àThe€Chancellor€referred€the€case€to€a€Special€Master€to€make€a€recommendation€as€to€theÏvalue€of€€the€partnershipððs€assets€and€liabilities.€€All€other€issues,€including€the€amount€of€eachÏpartnerððs€share,€were€reserved€for€further€determination€by€the€œChancellor.›Ìà àAt€the€Master's€hearing,€Aussenberg€presented€Alex€Ivy,€a€certified€public€accountant,€whoÏvalued€the€partnership's€accounts€receivable.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€On€œcross„examination,›€Ivy€admitted€that€theÏpercentages€generated€in€his€analysis€had€been€based€on€his€assumption€that€œthe€partnershipððs›Ïbooks€had€been€periodically€purged€of€bad€debt.€€€Kramer€and€Cocke€presented€the€testimony€ofÏVicki€Whitley,€the€bookkeeper€of€the€former€partnership.€€Ms.€Whitley€testified€that,€contrary€toÏIvyððs€assumption,€the€books€of€the€former€partnership€were€not€regularly€purged€of€bad€debt.€ÍFinally,€Kramer€and€Cocke€testified€about€the€collectibility€of€the€disputed€accounts€receivable€withÏwhich€they€were€familiar.€€€The€testimony€of€Kramer€and€Cocke€regarding€collectibility€wasÏunrefuted.Ìà àOn€October€22,€1992,€the€Master€determined€that€accounts€receivable€and€work„in„progressÏwere€not€routinely€evaluated€and€some€bad€debts€had€not€been€written€off€œ€the›€partnershipððs€books.€€ÏHe€also€found€that€certain€accounts€receivable€were€not€collectible.€€€€Finally,€the€Master€made€aÏrecommendation€as€to€the€value€of€œthe€accounts›€receivable€and€work„in„progress€as€of€the€date€ofÏthe€dissolution€of€the€partnership.€€€Ìà àThe€Chancellor€adopted€the€Report€of€the€Master€regarding€the€value€of€the€accountsÏreceivable€and€work„in„progress.€€He€also€found€that€the€parties€historically€had€based€their€yearlyÏdivision€of€the€profits€on€a€formula€that€took€into€account€each€partner's€productivity,€clientÏœorigination,›€and€collections.€€Using€the€formula€presented€by€the€defendants,€€the€Chancellor€foundÏthat€Aussenberg€was€entitled€to€18.12%€of€the€partnershipððs€total€accounts€receivable€and€œwork„in„progress,›€less€stipulated€deductions.€€€After€making€the€appropriate€deductions,€the€ChancellorÏfound€that€Aussenberg€was€entitled€to€$17,714.42.€€Ìà àIn€this€appeal,€Aussenberg€first€contends€that€the€Master€erred€in€permitting€Kramer€andÏCocke€to€testify€regarding€the€value€of€accounts€receivable€and€œwork„in„progress›€and€that€theÏChancellor€erred€œin€considering›€their€testimony.€€Aussenberg€contends€further€that€Kramer€andÏCocke€should€be€estopped€from€claiming€that€certain€accounts€receivable€were€worthless€when€theÏsame€accounts€receivable€were€later€submitted€to€a€bank€in€order€for€the€firm€to€receive€credit.€ÏFinally,€Aussenberg€asserts€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€determining€that€his€share€of€theÏpartnershipððs€accounts€receivable€and€work„in„progress€was€18.12%.€Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€reference€of€certain€matters€to€the€Master€can€affect€our€standard€of€review.€ÏA€concurrent€finding€of€fact€by€a€Master€and€a€trial€court€is€conclusive€on€appeal,€except€where€theÏfinding€is€on€an€issue€not€appropriate€for€referral,€where€it€is€based€on€an€error€of€law€or€a€mixedÏquestion€of€fact€and€law,€or€where€the€factual€finding€is€not€based€on€material€evidence.€€ò òòòArcherÍv.œ€Archeró óóó,€òò›€óó907€S.W.2d€412,€415€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€In€this€case,€Aussenberg€does€not€ask€usÏto€directly€review€the€Masterððs€factual€findings;€rather,€he€alleges€that€the€Master€erred€in€permittingÏKramerððs€and€Cockeððs€testimony€on€the€value€of€œthe€accounts›€receivable.€€This€raises€a€mixedÏquestion€of€fact€and€law.€€òòò òSee€Bubis€v.€œBlackmanóóó ó,ò ò›€ó ó435€S.W.2d€492,€498€(Tenn.€App.€1968).€ÌœÇ›à àAussenberg€argues€that€the€Master€erred€in€allowing€Kramer€and€Cocke€to€testify€about€theÏvalue€of€certain€accounts€receivable€and€œwork„in„progress›€because€both€were€unqualified€to€testifyÏabout€the€value€of€these€assets.€€He€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€crediting€Kramer€andÏCockeððs€testimony€over€the€testimony€of€Aussenbergððs€expert€witness,€Alex€Ivy.€Ìà àA€trial€court€is€œgiven›€considerable€latitude€in€the€admission€of€evidence€œand›€will€be€reversedÏonly€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòò òSteele€v.€Ft.€Sanders€Anesthesia€Group,€œP.C.óóó ó,ò òòò›€ó óóó897ÏS.W.2d€270,€275€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€€The€Master€allowed€Kramer€and€Cocke€to€testify€onlyÏabout€the€collectibility€of€accounts€with€which€they€were€familiar.€€They€did€not€offer€their€opinionsÏas€to€the€value€of€these€accounts.€€Instead,€they€testified€about€the€history€of€certain€accounts€andÏoffered€their€explanation€as€to€why€the€partnership€had€considered€these€accounts€uncollectible.€ÏThe€ultimate€valuation€of€these€accounts€was€left€to€the€Master.€€€€Moreover,€€Aussenbergððs€ownÏexpert,€Ivy,€testified€that€in€order€to€conduct€a€proper€valuation€of€the€disputed€accounts€ð ðyouÏwould€have€to€look€at€those€specific€accounts€and€talk€to€the€individuals€involved€with€that€accountÏand€determine€the€reasonable€collectibility€of€it.ðð€€€€Aussenberg€has€cited€no€case€law€which€wouldÏpreclude€a€partner€from€testifying€about€whether€certain€partnership€accounts€are€collectible.€€WeÏfind€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€Master€or€the€trial€court€in€permitting€the€testimony€of€KramerÏand€Cocke.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.€€Ìà àAussenberg€also€argues€that€the€Master€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€credit€theÏtestimony€of€Aussenbergððs€expert,€Mr.€Ivy.€€Ivy€testified€that€his€valuation€of€the€accountsÏreceivable€and€work„in„progress€was€based€on€the€assumption€that€the€partnershipððs€books€wereÏregularly€purged€at€the€end€of€every€fiscal€period.€€€Kramer€and€Cocke€proffered€the€unrefutedÏtestimony€of€the€bookkeeper€of€the€former€partnership,€who€testified€that€bad€debts€had€not€beenÏroutinely€written€off€€the€partnershipððs€books.€€The€Master€discredited€Ivyððs€valuation€of€theÏaccounts€receivable,€finding€that€it€was€based€upon€the€invalid€assumption€that€the€partnershipððsÏbooks€were€purged€periodically€of€uncollectible€accounts.€€€We€find€no€error€in€this€determination.€Ìà àAussenberg€argues€that€Kramer€and€Cocke€should€be€estopped€from€claiming€that€certainÍaccounts€receivable€were€uncollectible€when€these€accounts€were€among€those€later€included€asÏcollateral€for€bank€loans€for€the€new€partnership.€€Whether€the€undisputed€facts€warrant€applicationÏof€the€doctrine€of€estoppel€is€a€question€of€law;€therefore,€our€review€of€this€issue€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóóÏupon€the€record€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòSee€œMarriott€Employeesðð›€Fed.ÏCredit€Union€v.€œHarrisó óóó,›€897€S.W.2d€723,€727€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€Kramer€and€CockeÏprovided€a€list€of€accounts€receivable,€dated€March€20,€1991,€to€Sovran/Nations€œBank€(theÏð ðBankðð)›€on€June€16,€1992,€in€order€to€obtain€financing€for€the€remaining€partnership.€€This€listÏincluded€accounts€which€Kramer€and€Cocke€had€asserted€were€uncollectible€in€the€March€26,€1992Ïhearing€before€the€Master.€€Aussenberg€asserts€that€including€these€accounts€in€this€list€amountedÏto€a€representation€to€the€Bank€that€the€accounts€had€value,€contrary€to€œKramerððs€and€Cockeððs›Ïtestimony€before€the€Master.€€€He€argues€that€this€constitutes€a€fraud€on€the€court€and€that€KramerÏand€Cocke€should€be€estopped€from€taking€contradictory€positions€regarding€œthe›€value€of€theÏaccounts.€€€Kramer€and€Cocke€œmaintain›€that€the€inclusion€of€these€accounts€receivable€in€the€listÏsubmitted€to€the€Bank€was€not€a€representation€as€to€their€value,€œthat€it›€was€merely€a€response€toÏthe€Bankððs€request€for€a€list€of€accounts€receivable,€and€that€the€doctrine€of€estoppel€does€notÏapply.€Ìà àThe€elements€of€equitable€estoppel€as€related€to€the€party€estopped€œare›€(1)€conduct€whichÏamounts€to€a€false€representation€or€concealment€of€material€facts,€œor€conduct›€which€is€calculated€toÏconvey€the€impression€that€the€facts€are€otherwise€than,€and€inconsistent€with,€those€which€theÏparty€subsequently€œasserts;›€(2)€œthe€intention›€or€œexpectation›€that€such€conduct€will€be€acted€upon€byÏthe€other€party;€œand€(3)›€œactual›€or€œconstructive€knowledge›€of€the€real€œfacts.€€The›€elements€as€relatedÏto€the€party€claiming€the€estoppel€œare›€(1)€œa€lack›€of€knowledge€and€œan€inability€to€learn€the€truth›€as€toÏthe€facts€in€question;€(2)€reliance€œon›€the€conduct€of€the€œestopped€party;›€and€(3)€action€based€thereonÏœwhich›€œchanges›€his€position€œprejudicially.€òòò òConsumer›€Credit€Union€v.€œHiteó óóó,›€801€S.W.2d€822,Ï825€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€œ(quotingòòò ò›€Callahan€v.€Town€of€œMiddletonó óóó,›€€292€S.W.2d€œ501,€508›Ï(Tenn.€App.€1954)).€€Ìà àUnder€Tennessee€case€law,€estoppel€is€not€œfavored,›€and€it€is€the€burden€of€the€party€Ïœinvoking›€the€doctrine€to€prove€each€œelement.›€€òòò òRobinson€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.ÏœCo.ó óóó,›€857€S.W.2d€559,€563€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòò òBokor€v.€œHolderó óóó,›€722€S.W.2d€676,€680€Ï(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€œAs€set€forth€below,€Aussenberg›€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€toÏsupport€his€claim€œof€estoppel.€€›€€Ìà àœAussenberg›€failed€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€any€evidence€that€Kramer€and€Cocke€Ïfalsely€represented€to€the€Bank€or€to€any€other€entity€that€the€disputed€accounts€receivable€hadÏvalue.€€While€there€is€evidence€that€Kramer€and€Cocke€gave€the€Bank€a€list€of€accounts€receivableÏin€order€to€obtain€financing,€the€list€is€not€included€in€the€record.€€€Moreover,€Kramer€and€CockeÏpresented€the€testimony€of€a€Bank€officer€which€suggested€that€the€Bank€did€its€own€aging€toÏdetermine€the€proper€value€of€the€accounts€œreceivable›€and€that€the€Bank€did€not€rely€on€Kramer€andÏCocke€to€value€them.€€This€testimony€was€unrefuted.€€Thus,€Aussenberg€has€failed€to€establish€theÏfirst€element€of€estoppel,€a€false€representation.€€We€need€not€address€the€other€elements€ofÏestoppel,€such€as€whether€Aussenberg€established€reliance.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€thisÏissue.€€Ìà àFinally,€Aussenberg€argues€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€determining€that€he€was€entitled€toÏan€18.12%€interest€in€the€partnershipððs€accounts€receivable€and€work„in„progress.€€He€asserts€thatÏthe€preponderance€of€proof€presented€at€trial€supported€his€claim€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€one„thirdÏshare€of€these€assets.€€Under€T.R.A.P.€13(d),€our€review€of€this€issue€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€recordÏof€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€œcorrectness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€proves€otherwise.›€€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€œv.›€œHuddlestonó óóó,›€854€S.W.2d€87,€91Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€€The€partnership€did€not€have€a€written€partnership€agreement.€€In€the€absence€of€aÏwritten€agreement,€Aussenberg€contends€that€he€was€entitled€to€an€equal€share€of€the€assets€of€theÏpartnership€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€61„1„124(b)(1).€€€€He€notes€that€he€was€listed€as€taking€a€one„third€share€œof€the›€partnershipððs€profits€on€the€firm's€1991€K„1€form€1065€filed€with€the€InternalÏRevenue€Service.€€Ìà àKramer€and€Cocke,€on€the€other€hand,€assert€that€the€trial€court€properly€followed€theÏpartners'€agreed„upon€formula€in€determining€that€Aussenberg€was€entitled€to€18.12%€of€accountsÏreceivable€and€work„in„progress.€€At€trial€the€bookkeeper€for€the€former€partnership,€as€well€asÏCocke€and€Kramer,€€testified€that€the€firm€historically€had€used€a€formula€to€determine€€a€œbaseline›Ïdistribution€of€profits€that€was€based€on€a€weighted€average€of€each€œpartnerððs€collections,€›Ïproductivity€and€origination.€€€Cocke€and€Kramer€then€stated€œthat,›€after€the€formula€was€applied,Ïoften€there€would€be€some€modification€of€each€partnerððs€percentages€based€on€ð ðsoft€œfactors,ðð›€suchÏas€whether€the€partner€was€a€managing€partner€or€participated€in€recruitment.€€Aussenberg€deniedÏthat€there€was€an€œagreement›€but€acknowledged€that€the€partners€split€the€profits€based€onÏproduction,€œorigination,›€œcollections€and›€the€ð ðsoft€factorsðð€mentioned€by€Cocke€and€Kramer.€€Ì€€€€€€€€€à àTennessee€law€does€not€require€a€partnership€agreement€to€be€in€writing€to€be€effective.€Ïò òòòSeeóóó ó€òòò òHoppen€v.€Powelló óóó,€600€S.W.2d€œ736,€738„39›€(Tenn.€App.€1980)€(applying€specificÏprovisions€of€Uniform€Partnership€Act€when€oral€partnership€agreement€was€silent€as€to€thoseÏprovisions).€€€The€evidence€presented€at€trial€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏthe€parties€had€orally€agreed€to€œuse›€the€œbaseline›€formula€to€determine€the€distribution€of€profits€andÏthat€Aussenberg€was€entitled€to€an€18.12%€share€of€the€partnershipððs€accounts€receivable€andÏwork„in„progress€pursuant€to€this€formula.€Apparently€there€had€been€deviation€from€this€formulaÏat€times€when€the€parties€orally€agreed€to€a€modification€based€on€ð ðsoft€œfactors,ðð›€such€as€time€spentÏon€firm€management.€€In€this€case,€there€was€no€such€agreed€modification,€so€the€trial€courtððsÏapplication€of€the€œagreed„upon›€œbaseline›€formula€was€appropriate.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court€on€thisÏissue.€€€Ìà àAffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.€€€€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€œJ.›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€œJ.ó ó›