ÿWPCZ …# VU:a %› 0û¡w@œ 4Ü ð ÿ  0J 0TW 0^« 0h 0rq 0|ã 0†_ 0å 1uu 0dêU*NB)xDC¡ AMä£1v~ÔvÓR B% D3B 0@u AOµÆ 0DÊ D/ B=˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Ó~Ð$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ LegalLˆhÐ (Avery 4167 Post Card AØ'ÿ LegalhÐ (Avery 4167 Post CardTÑÔ€Xm¢XXXÔÑ7€¥3XXdìXXdæ7Ñ ²³´Dµ¶Ê·¸º»ʼÓ€R¦"3|xÇH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ13,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßR€!" A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€œTENNESSEEÌ›ÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€œKNOXVILLEó óÌÌÌÌ›ÌÓ  ÓÌCARL€F.€BELL,à àà àà àà à)à àGREENE€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àNO.€€03A01„9610„CH„00334Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€€THOMAS€R.€FRIERSON,€II,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌROBERT€CARTER,à àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœAFFIRMEDÌÌ›ÌÌE.€Ronald€Chesnut,€Greeneville,€for€Appellant.ÌJeffrey€A.€Powell,€Chattanooga,€for€œAppellee.ÌÌ›ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓÓà àThe€motion€of€the€appellee€to€dismiss€this€appeal€because€of€the€failure€ofÏthe€appellant€to€œserve›€a€copy€of€the€Notice€of€Appeal€œon›€the€Clerk€of€the€AppellateÏCourt€is€denied€in€accordance€with€the€holding€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòCobb€v.ÏBeieróó,€_____S.W.2d_____,€No.€03S01„9610„CV„00106,€filed€at€Knoxville€on€AprilÏ28,€1997,€for€publication.Ìà àThis€is€an€action€for€the€rescission€of€(1)€a€contract€of€sale,€(2)€a€lease,€andÏ(3)€a€promissory€note,€arising€out€of€a€transaction€involving€Fordððs€Package€Store,ÏInc.€in€Greeneville,€together€with€compensatory€and€punitive€damages.Ìà àThe€defendant,€Carl€F.€Bell,€was€the€sole€stockholder€of€the€package€store,Ïthe€sale€of€which€to€the€plaintiff€was€arranged€by€the€defendant,€Glen€Simerly,€asÏagent€for€Southeast€Business€Brokers,€Inc.Ìà àParenthetically,€we€note€at€this€juncture€that€the€Chancellor€exoneratedÏSimerly€and€Southeast€Business€Brokers,€Inc.€from€liability€to€the€plaintiff€and€theÏjudgment,€as€to€them,€has€become€final.Ìà àThe€plaintiff,€in€June€1994,€responded€to€a€newspaper€advertisement€thatÏFordððs€Package€Store€was€for€sale.€€He€requested€the€business€records,€includingÏprofit€and€loss€statements€for€the€prior€three€years,€and€inquired€about€theÏmechanics€of€transferring€a€liquor€license.€€On€the€basis€of€a€representation€that€theÏstore€generated€a€net€income€yearly€of€œ$40,000.00,›€the€plaintiff€executed€an€offer€toÏpurchase.€€Documentation€was€òòpost€facto,óó€and€consisted€of€an€ð ðincome€expenseððÏstatement€prepared€by€the€defendant€Bell€that€the€package€store€had€an€annual€netÏincome€ranging€from€$42,864.00€to€$51,529.00€for€the€years€1991,€1992€and€1993.€ÏThe€purchase€was€finalized€on€September€13,€1994.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€entered€upon€his€entrepreneurial€adventure,€but€soon€learnedÏthat€much€was€amiss.€€He€obtained€copies€of€the€storeððs€tax€returns€for€each€of€theÏprior€three€years,€together€with€copies€of€business€tax€returns€from€the€InternalÏRevenue€Service,€the€latter€of€which€revealed€a€loss€for€œeach€of€these›€years.€€TheÏsales€tax€returns€revealed€that€the€storeððs€sales€were€remarkably€less€than€asÏrepresented.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€thereupon€requested€of€Mr.€Bell€that€he€be€allowed€to€rescind€theÏcontract.€€This€request€was€refused,€and€the€plaintiff€continued€to€struggle€with€hisÍnewly„acquired€store.€€When€his€resources€were€depleted€the€store€was€closed,€andÏthis€action€was€œfiled€seking€the€relief€mentioned.›Ìà àThe€defendant€Bell€generally€denied€the€material€allegations€of€the€complaintÏand€ð ðdemanded€strict€proof.ððÌà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€œòòTenn.€R.€App.€P.,ÏRule€13óó(d).›Ìà àThe€Chancellor€essentially€found€that€the€material€allegations€of€theÏComplaint€were€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€He€found€that€theÏdefendant€Bell€falsely€represented€to€the€plaintiff,€then€a€prospective€purchaserÏonly,€that€the€business€generated€an€annual€net€profit€of€$40,000.00,€which€wasÏlater€documented€by€an€ð ðIncome€Expense€Statementðð€purportedly€verifying€theÏrepresentation€previously€made.€€Lesser€indicia€of€fraud€were€found:€store€suppliersÏwere€wary€of€Mr.€Bell,€and€had€required€him€to€pay€upon€delivery€of€merchandise;€aÏcash€register€repair€service€refused€further€repair€service€until€prior€charges€wereÏsettled;€the€TVA€was€about€to€repossess€a€heat€pump€which€it€financed.€€As€to€theseÏlesser€indicia,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€made€no€representations€about€them,Ïand€takes€the€plaintiff€to€task€for€his€failure€to€make€proper€inquiry€of€the€affectedÏcreditors.€€The€appellant€in€effect€excoriates€the€plaintiff€for€his€failure€to€investigateÏthe€business€history€of€the€store€in€a€more€thorough€œway.€€We›€have€searched€hisÏbrief€and€nowhere€do€we€find€any€œdiscussion€of›€the€telling€evidence€that€heÏrepresented€to€the€plaintiff€that€the€store€generated€a€net€profit€of€$40,000.00Íannually€as€alleged€by€the€plaintiff€and€found€by€the€Chancellor.Ìà àThe€appellant€presents€for€review€the€issues€of€whether€the€alleged€fraudÏand€misrepresentation€of€the€defendant€œwere›€established€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence,€and€whether€the€business€tax€records€of€the€œdefendant›€were€properlyÏrequired€to€be€produced€by€him.Ìà àTo€sustain€a€claim€for€fraud€and€misrepresentation,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€thatÏrepresentations€of€existing€or€past€facts€that€are€material€and€false€were€madeÏknowingly,€recklessly,€carelessly,€or€without€belief€in€their€truth€and€were€reliedÏupon.€€òòKeller€v.€West„œMorr›€Investors,€Ltd.,€óó770€S.W.2d€543€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€ÏThe€Chancellor€applied€this€standard,€and€we€cannot€find€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€his€determination.€€With€respect€to€the€second€issue,€theÏappellant€argues€that€his€ð ðbusiness€tax€recordsðð€were€not€material€and€should€notÏhave€been€considered€on€the€issue€of€fraud,€since€they€were€never€revealed€to€theÏappellee€prior€to€his€purchase€of€the€store.€€We€think€a€short€answer€to€thisÏargument€is€found€in€the€fact€that€the€sworn€data€in€the€tax€returns€directlyÏcontradicted€the€financial€data€supplied€to€the€purchaser€before€the€sale€wasÏconsummated,€and€therefore€could€hardly€be€more€relevant€on€the€issue€ofÏcalculated€fraud.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant€and€the€case€isÏremanded€for€the€enforcement€of€the€judgment.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€œJr.,€Ô% € ÔJudge›€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ