ÿWPC  …#†VUNÜ %* 0 (04Xl 0l{ 0Dç 0J+ 0Tu 0^É 0h' 0r 0| 0†} 0 1u“ U, 0d4 U,˜ U>Ä B)DC+ AMnU*»åÒaÓë43øRv~J D3È BûvÓ 0@ë AO+Æz 0D@ 0D„ D/È B÷˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÎÙP /5ÇDÎp ^P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡3x2Xhô3|x‰((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òDecember€21,€1995ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellees€ultimately€sold€their€home€in€October€1992€for€$425,000.€€Ì WÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝProof€at€trial€revealed€that€in€July€1993,€the€Novels€purchased€a€home€at€400€River€OaksÏRoad,€located€in€the€Gardens€of€River€Oaks,€for€approximately€$100,000€more€than€the€contractÏprice€on€the€Brannon€home.€€Ì áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝActions€pursued€by€and€against€the€Brannons'€real€estate€agency€were€subsequentlyÏdismissed.€Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€not€disputed€that€Mr.€Brannon€was€aware€of€the€proposed€channelization€prior€toÏexecution€of€the€contract,€but€did€not€disclose€the€information€to€the€Novels.€Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€trial,€Mr.€Novel€testified€that€"the€financing€was€in€place"€for€the€closing€and€that€theÏsecond€contingency€was€waived.€€A€March€6,€1992€letter€from€the€Novels'€realtor€to€the€Brannons'Ïreal€estate€agent€confirms€this€when€stating:€€"Mr.€Novel€has€elected€not€to€have€the€houseÏappraised€at€this€time€thus€waiving€the€appraisal€requirement€in€our€contract."€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@++++'ÿÿdxd dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌROBERT€L.€BRANNON€and,ó óà à)à àShelby€County€Chancery€CourtÌò òMARILYN€M.€BRANNONó ó,à à)à àNo.€101646„1€R.D.Ìà à)à àÌ€€€€€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendants/Appelleesà à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9409„CH„00219Ìà à)Ìò òCHARLES€E.€NOVEL€and,ó óà à)Ìò òSANDRA€L.€NOVEL,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Counter„Plaintiffs/Appellantsà à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|ó“` Å `€€LßÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€Neal€Small,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òJames€B.€Summersó ó,€Ìò òRichard€H.€Allenó ó,€ÌNEELY,€GREEN,€FARGARSON€&€BROOKE,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Counter„Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òBlanchard€E.€Tualó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Counter„Defendants/Appellees.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òÌTOMLIN,€Sp.€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓThis€is€a€breach€of€contract€case€involving€the€sale€of€real€property.€€After€the€buyers€failed€to€closeÏon€the€property,€the€sellers€initiated€the€present€action€seeking€money€damages.€€The€buyersÏcounterclaimed€alleging€fraud,€violation€of€Tennessee's€Consumer€Protection€Act€and/or€negligentÏmisrepresentation.€€A€bench€trial€on€the€merits€resulted€in€a€damages€award€for€the€sellers€in€theÏamount€of€$53,484.92€and€a€dismissal€of€the€counterclaim.€€The€trial€court€expressly€found€noÏmisrepresentation€by€the€sellers.€€The€buyers€have€appealed.€€For€reasons€hereinafter€set€forth,€weÏaffirm.€ÌÌà àOn€February€28,€1992,€Charles€E.€and€Sandra€L.€Novel€("Novels"€orÏ"Appellants"),€contracted€to€purchase€the€home€of€Robert€L.€and€Marilyn€M.€Brannon€("Brannons"Ïor€"Appellees"),€located€in€the€Gardens€of€River€Oaks€Subdivision,€at€440€River€Oaks€Place,ÏMemphis,€for€a€purchase€price€of€$432,500.€€Sweetbriar€Creek€is€located€approximately€20€feetÏfrom€the€rear€of€the€property.€€Appellants€deposited€$7,500€as€earnest€money,€with€the€closingÏscheduled€on€or€before€June€6,€1992.€€The€closing€was€expressly€made€contingent€upon€theÏappellants€obtaining€loan€approval€and€an€appraisal€for€at€least€the€sales€price,€within€a€time€certain.ÌÌà àAppellees€filed€their€lawsuit€on€July€7,€1992,€seeking€to€recover€the€earnest€money,Ïall€compensatory€damages€and€related€expenses× ƒ$ ××  ×€incurred€as€a€result€of€Appellants'€failure€to€closeÏand€their€attorney's€fees.€€For€answer,€Appellants€denied€that€all€contingencies€in€the€contract€hadÏbeen€met;€admitted€informing€their€realtor,€Bruce€Baskette,€by€written€notice€on€May€22,€1992,€thatÏthey€would€not€close€on€the€property;€and€affirmatively€alleged€that€Appellees€negligentlyÏmisrepresented€the€property€and€fraudulently€concealed€material€facts€which€induced€them€to€enterÍinto€the€contract.€€Appellants'€counterclaim€alleged€that€subsequent€to€the€contract's€execution,€butÏprior€to€closing,€they€discovered€the€proposed€concrete€channelization€of€Sweetbriar€Creek.€ÏAppellants€alleged€that€Appellees€never€informed€them€of€this€construction,€of€which€they€knew€orÏhad€reason€to€know,€and€which€"dramatically€change[d]€the€reason€for€[Appellants]€entering€intoÏ[the]€[c]ontract€.€.€.€."€€Appellants€averred€that€the€proposed€construction€would€significantlyÏchange€the€aesthetic€value€of€the€backyard€and€adjacent€property.€€Appellants€sought€rescission€ofÏthe€contract€and€recovery€of€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€as€well€as€the€earnest€money.€ÏAppellants'€amended€answer€and€countercomplaint€specifically€alleges€that€such€construction€didÏnot€coincide€with€their€future€landscaping€plans,€which€included€"open[ing]€up"€the€backyardÏproperty€(by€removing€an€existing€fence)€to€reveal€the€"heavily€treed,€natural€wildlife€creek."€€TheyÏdescribed€the€creek€as€a€"focal€point"€of€their€future€landscaping€plans€and€alleged€that€Appellees'Ïfailure€to€disclose€and/or€concealment€of€the€plans€for€the€project,€on€which€Appellants€relied,Ïdeprived€them€of€the€opportunity€to€make€an€informed€decision€regarding€the€purchase€of€theÏproperty.€ÌÌà àIn€ruling€from€the€bench,€the€trial€court€reasoned€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€Court€has€had€difficulty€following€the€[Appellants']€line€ofÏreasoning€almost€from€the€inception€of€the€hearing.€€The€proofÏoffered€seemed€to€emphasize€that€the€ditch,€which€incidentally€is€notÏon€the€property.€.€.€.€€But€it€was€described€alternatively€by€theÏ[Appellant]€as€being€a€flowing€creek€in€a€pastoral€setting€which€isÏgoing€to€be€completely€disrupted€and€changed€and€rendered€aÏliability€instead€of€an€asset€by€the€proposed€concrete€lining€thatÏapparently€will€be€put€in€very€shortly.ÌÌà8 àà àOn€the€other€hand,€a€good€part€of€the€proof€was€dealing€withÏthe€erosion€aspect€of€the€creek,€the€disease€that€breeds€in€the€area,Ïthe€mosquitoes€that€are€there€and€the€stagnate€water€pools.€€Well,Ïobviously€there's€all€kinds€of€contrast€there.€€You€can't€have€aÏpastoral€setting€and€a€flowing€creek€when€you've€got€a€stagnatedÏcreek€and€mosquito€infested,€disease€ridden,€eroding€type€situation.Ï.€.€.€€Certainly€there€has€been€some€erosion€but€not€the€excessiveÏtype€that€some€seem€to€feel.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€just€appears€to€this€Court€that€if€an€astute€businessmanÏdecided€to€breach€a€$400,000€contract€that€he€just€executed,€that€he'sÏgoing€to€do€his€dead€level€best€to€smooth€it€over€and€try€to€justifyÏwhat€he's€doing€from€the€start.€€That€was€not€the€case€here.€.€.€.€€SoÏwhen€the€selling€agent€gets€a€letter€back€in€effect€apologizing€forÏbacking€out€of€the€contract€explaining€that,€you€know,€there€areÏgoing€to€be€some€damages.€€I€hope€it€won't€be€any€more€than€theÏearnest€money€put€up.€€And€don't€forget,€you're€supposed€toÏmitigate€your€damages.€€This€Court€interprets€that€at€least€at€thatÏpoint€to€be€an€admission€that€you're€not€only€breaching€the€contractÏbut€you€know€that€you're€going€to€be€held€accountable€for€it.€€IÏdon't€see€any€other€way€to€look€at€it.€€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€€We€have€examples€of€contrasting€statements€and€proofÏall€through€this.€€We€have€a€buyer€who€has€decided€that€because€of€aÏcreek,€either€the€disadvantages€of€the€creek€or€the€fact€that€there'sÏgoing€to€be€a€concrete€liner€put€in,€it€makes€the€first€piece€ofÏproperty€unacceptable,€but€yet€another€piece€of€property€3€or€400Ïfeet€down€the€creek€is€acceptable.× ƒ% ××  ×€€And€the€only€difference,€exceptÏmaybe€the€shape€of€the€lot€and€the€house€itself,€is€the€fact€that€theÏsecond€piece€of€property€is€a€greater€distance€from€the€creek€than€theÏfirst€piece€of€property.€€Neither€piece€of€property€abuts€the€creek.€€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àBut€there€has€to€be€something€in€the€Court's€opinion€thatÏaccounts€for€the€change€in€opinion€of€the€[Appellant]€buyers'Ïopinion€of€this€property€.€.€.€.€the€only€thing€that€the€Court€couldÏfigure€out€had€practically€nothing€to€do€with€the€creek€but€rather€withÏthe€layout€of€the€two€lots€and€the€configuration€of€the€houses€andÏother€improvements€on€the€property.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àIt€just€seems€to€this€Court€from€all€the€proof€that€the€reason,Ïthe€most€likely€reason€that€.€.€.€€the€[Appellants]€decided€not€to€goÏthrough€with€this€lot€was€not€the€situation€with€the€creek,€what€theÏcreek€looked€like€or€what€the€creek€attributes€or€liabilities€were,€butÏrather€the€size,€shape€of€the€lot€and€the€configuration€of€theÏimprovements€to€the€lot€which€would,€granted,€make€it€very€difficultÏto€landscape€the€back€part€of€that€lot€in€such€a€way€that€it€wouldÏreally€add€to€overall€appearance€of€the€house€and€the€backyard,€.€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€was€also€impressed€by€the€fact€that€the€concrete€channelization€wouldÏeliminate€any€of€the€Novels'€expressed€concerns€regarding€erosion,€mosquitoes,€stagnate€waterÍand€disease.€€The€court€viewed€such€construction€as€"a€positive€rather€than€a€negative€to€[theÏsubject]€property€as€well€as€all€the€property€around€it"€and€did€not€consider€it€a€material€fact€thatÏhad€to€be€disclosed.€€As€to€the€advantages€of€a€"free€flowing€creek,"€the€court€found€them€"almostÏnegligible,"€in€this€case,€considering€the€fact€that€the€property€owners€could€not€even€see€it,€with€itÏbeing€"twelve€feet€underground€almost."€ÌÌà àWe€perceive€the€issue€on€appeal€as€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holdingÏAppellants€in€breach€of€the€contract€and€awarding€damages€to€Appellees.€€Our€review€is€inÏaccordance€with€Rule€13(d)€T.R.A.P.,€which€provides€for€a€òòò òde€novoóóó ó€review,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€The€record€includes€Mr.€Novel's€May€22,€1992€correspondence€to€his€realtor,Ïinforming€him€of€his€intention€not€to€close€on€the€property.€€Novel€concludes€the€letter€by€stating,Ï"Sandy€and€I€apologize€for€the€inconvenience€this€has€caused."€€On€June€2,€1992,€counsel€forÏAppellants€informed€the€appellees'€attorney:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[The€Novels]€are€not€in€a€position€to€purchase€your€clients'Ïhome€.€.€.€.€€Therefore,€the€residence€should€be€placed€back€on€theÏmarket€and€sold€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àMy€client€expects€Mr.€Brannon€to€make€every€effort€toÏmitigate€any€alleged€damages€which€may€result€from€the€transactionÏ.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÌÓÓOn€June€25,€1992,€Mr.€Novel€wrote€his€real€estate€agency's€president€explaining€that€he€and€hisÏwife€had€not€detailed€the€reasons€for€their€decision€so€that€they€could€"remove€[them]selvesÏamicably."€€Novel€then€makes€reference€to€an€appraisal€conducted€by€the€Shelby€CountyÏAssessor's€office€valuing€the€property€"for€a€good€bit€less€than€the€purchase€price"€and€suggestsÏthat€both€realty€agencies€involved€in€the€transaction€were€aware€of€the€lower€appraisal€at€the€timeÏthe€parties€were€in€negotiations€regarding€the€sale.€€Finally,€in€correspondence€to€counsel€for€theÍBrannons'€realtor,× ƒ& ××  ×€dated€July€28,€1992,€Appellants'€counsel€states:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAs€you€are€aware,€the€[contract]€was€contingent€upon€[the€Novels]Ïbeing€able€to€obtain€loan€approval€and€an€appraisal€for€at€least€theÏsales€price€in€the€contract.€€Unfortunately,€the€bank€did€not€grantÏloan€approval€nor€was€an€appraisal€obtained€for€at€least€the€salesÏprice€of€the€contract.€€Further,€at€the€time€the€agreement€was€enteredÏinto€between€the€parties,€[the€Brannons]€failed€to€disclose€the€futureÏconstruction€and€enlargement€of€the€drainage€ditch€running€throughÏthe€property.€€Obviously,€this€information€should€have€been€legallyÏdisclosed.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓAt€trial,€Mr.€Novel€was€asked,€€"was€there€any€other€reason,€other€than€the€proposedÏchannelization€of€Sweetbriar€Creek,€that€caused€you€to€not€go€forward€with€that€contract?",€toÏwhich€he€responded,€"[n]o€sir,€there€was€not."× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àFrom€the€trial€court's€ruling,€it€is€clear€that€he€considered€this€simply€a€case€ofÏbuyers'€remorse€and€that€the€Novels'€failure€to€close€was€not€due€to€any€of€their€purported€reasons,Ïbut€because€they€found€a€more€preferred€home€after€execution€of€the€contract.€€The€record€indicatesÏthat€the€Novels€initially€provided€no€explanation€for€their€failure€to€go€forward€with€the€contract.€ÏThey€argue€that€they€were€never€asked€to€explain€their€decision€and€simply€failed€to€extend€aÏreason,€hoping€to€end€things€amicably.€€Mr.€Baskette,€indeed,€testified€that€he€did€not€ask€for€anÏexplanation€when€Appellants€informed€him€of€their€intention€not€to€proceed.€€Once€reasons€wereÏextended,€they€ranged€from€an€inadequate€appraisal€of€the€property€by€the€county€tax€assessorÏ(prior€to€the€filing€of€the€lawsuit),€to€a€failure€to€meet€the€contingencies€provided€for€in€theÍcontract× ƒ( ××  ×€and€the€Brannons'€failure€to€disclose€information€pertaining€to€the€proposedÏchannelization€(asserted€initially€by€counsel€in€correspondence€subsequent€to€the€filing€of€theÏlawsuit)€and,€finally,€to€the€Brannons'€failure€to€disclose€erosion€and€flooding€problems€associatedÏwith€the€area€(asserted€at€trial).€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Novels€contend€that€they€did€not€discover€the€eroding€and€floodingÏproblems€until€shortly€before€trial€in€February€1994,€thus,€explaining€their€actions€in€not€settingÏforth€these€reasons€in€their€original€and€amended€pleadings.€€As€previously€indicated,€however,ÏMr.€Novel€considered€the€proposed€channelization€the€only€reason€for€the€failure€to€close.€€TheÏrecord€reveals€that€the€Novels€discovered€this€proposed€project€no€later€than€May€1992,€but€did€notÏrelate€that€their€failure€to€proceed€was€due€to€the€Brannons'€failure€to€disclose€such€until€counsel'sÏJuly€28,€1992€correspondence,€after€suit€was€filed.€€Apparently,€this€"eleventh€hour"€defense€wasÏnot€accepted€by€the€trial€judge€after€hearing€all€the€testimony€and€discerning€each€witness'Ïcredibility.€€We€must€agree€as€we€find€the€Novels'€initial€letter€to€their€agent€as€well€as€theirÏattorney's€correspondence€with€counsel€for€the€Brannons,€to€clearly€suggest€that€the€NovelsÏconsidered€themselves€accountable€for€their€actions.€€We€conclude€that€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€supports€the€trial€court's€findings.€€ÌÌÌWe,€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€access€costs€to€Charles€E.€and€Sandra€L.ÏNovel,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTOMLIN,€Sp.€J.€(Concurs)