ÿWPCÝ$ ¥èY®jn1(ZiðmË»„©™N¯À³ © ‚Àã ñ= '*²ggÇB“¢¡¡’7[–$ËÞÂ3y?ñ°ºuÎpÞi`ažy)ñP‚o&Bú§±½3Èô­>v ²¨o’˜/ÜrĨ&(ÜÆ²€,úoºÄ©ga5*.Lñ­"õ'©¸ØUƒÞ“+Lˆv¶à—=¿¸ïþzè*H þtæáv2°1Ÿ‰Æñ…sä™S¤:E•{Zab_F6ÿ¿Šwpë3%˜ ÿê.~iÄÕÊ‹i9Ÿ#D'±hA¸÷t™ÏYBÞß |ÙT3 ÷Húù€C%鳩Kº„uœw¥CÆÞ¿¬©Ïš¬V´¶õËöºFU;Äzžå ¬ ýúNO€.f²îðï÷ÎJª=m¨‡k»*d¢_T”>È]ƒž›ÂPtɵ¢X½Ü:²Â4y‰±» ƒ@Tóc$±î‘ß;AÒæøJ×%út0 œïQ%ÏË€a;îžhå;i+øÐ»®tIv퉪´wÎ$qA‚.*jxÎÿ9` `€€@EîQ` 8ttxP&‰ð È tßññà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€¼g¼„„ԈР€Ð ÐÌÌÌGUY€BEATY,à0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ð* z€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)ÐV¦ €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àFentress€CircuitÐl¼ p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àNo.€6969Ð‚Ò p€%p€% ÐVS.à0 ` àà0¸ ` €%` €%àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ð˜è €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àAppeal€No.Юþ p€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p à01A01„9701„CV„00046ÐÄ p€%p€% ÐBOBBY€McGRAW€andà0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)ÐÚ*€%€% ÐSTEVE€BROWN,à0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ðð@€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendants/Appellants.à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)Ðl€%€% ÐÌÌÌà@!DàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@&DàFOR€FENTRESS€COUNTYˆÌà@öö$DàAT€JAMESTOWN,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@‘ ‘ DàTHE€HONORABLE€CONRAD€E.€TROUTMAN,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%àòòFor€Defendants/Appellantsóó:Ð:&Š!p€%p€% ÐÌJohn€D.€Ageeà0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%àJames€P.€Smith,€Jr.Ðf(¶# p€%p€% ÐCooley,€Cooley€&€Ageeà0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%àCrossville,€TennesseeÐ|)Ì$!p€%p€% ÐKingston,€TennesseeÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPatrick€T.€PhillipsÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡„„¼¼gÔà@Ì Ì Dàò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€VACATED€IN€PARTˆÐ B3’.* Ðà@hh)DàAND€REMANDEDó óÔ#†¼g¼„„ #ԈРª4ú/+ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ  –<æ72 Ðò òÔ€„„¼¼gÔÑ  ÑÓ€ÓÑ€*ÑÑ€!* ÑÑ€*Ñà@ÎÎ)DàòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÔ€Šƒ‚Š„„Ôà ` àThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€over€the€sale€and€repossession€of€a€drilling€rig.€€TheÐ è8 Ðseller€filed€suit€against€the€purchasers€in€the€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€Court€seekingÏimmediate€possession€of€the€rig€and€damages.€€Following€the€purchasersðð€de€novo€appeal,€theÏCircuit€Court€for€Fentress€County€awarded€the€seller€possession€of€the€rig€but€held€that€theÏpurchasers€could€recover€the€rig€by€paying€the€seller€the€outstanding€balance€of€the€purchaseÏprice.€€On€the€purchasersðð€appeal,€this€court€held€that€the€seller€was€entitled€to€a€judgment€forÏthe€unpaid€purchase€price€but€that€the€seller€had€not€been€entitled€to€repossess€the€rig.€ÏAccordingly,€this€court€remanded€the€case€to€determine€the€purchasersðð€damages€for€theÏsellerððs€wrongful€detention€of€the€rig.€€The€purchasers€asserted€on€remand€that€theÏappropriate€measure€of€their€damages€had€already€been€determined€in€a€similar€RoaneÏCounty€proceeding€between€the€same€parties.€€The€trial€court€disagreed€and€awarded€theÏpurchasers€$26,021€for€the€sellerððs€wrongful€detention€of€the€rig€and€$8,000€in€attorneyððs€feesÏunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„30„110€(1980).€€All€parties€have€appealed.€€The€purchasersÏassert€that€the€trial€court€should€have€used€the€same€measure€of€damages€used€in€the€RoaneÏCounty€proceeding€and€that€they€should€have€been€awarded€exemplary€damages€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„30„210€(1980).€€The€seller€asserts€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€damage€award€and€that€the€purchasers€were€not€entitled€to€recover€theirÏattorneyððs€fees.€€We€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€correctly€calculated€the€purchasersððÏdamages€but€that€the€case€must€be€remanded€for€further€consideration€of€the€award€ofÏattorneyððs€fees€to€the€purchasers.ÌÌà@ÿÿ.Dàò òI.ó óˆÐ æ(6$. ÐÌà ` àIn€January€1986,€Three€Gððs€Drilling€Company€sold€a€1978€Drilltech€Type€SMEÏdrilling€rig€to€Bobby€McGraw€and€Steve€Brown€for€$50,000.€€Messrs.€McGraw€and€BrownÏpaid€$25,000€down€and€agreed€to€pay€the€balance€in€four€$6,250€installments€due€betweenÏApril€1,€1986€and€January€1,€1987.€€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€took€possession€of€the€rigÏbut€failed€to€execute€a€written€contract€or€to€make€any€of€their€payments.€€On€March€13,Ï1992,€Guy€Beaty,€one€of€the€partners€in€Three€Gððs€Drilling€Company,€filed€suit€in€the€RoaneÏCounty€General€Sessions€Court€seeking€immediate€possession€of€the€rig.€€The€generalÏsessions€court€awarded€Mr.€Beaty€a€writ€of€immediate€possession,€and€sheriffððs€deputies€tookÏpossession€of€the€rig€and€turned€it€over€to€Mr.€Beaty€in€March€1992.Ìâ âÐ ¨9ø4D Ðà ` àMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€resisted€the€Roane€County€suit€and,€in€March€or€AprilÏâ â1992,€convinced€the€general€sessions€court€to€dismiss€Mr.€Beatyððs€suit€for€improper€venue.€ÏFor€some€reason€not€apparent€in€the€record,€the€general€sessions€court€overlooked€orderingÏthat€the€rig€be€returned€as€contemplated€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„30„208€(1980).€€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€perfected€a€de€novo€appeal€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€Roane€CountyÏbecause€the€Roane€County€General€Sessions€Court€had€declined€to€order€Mr.€Beaty€to€returnÏthe€rig€when€it€dismissed€his€case.ÌÌà ` àOn€April€2,€1992,€Mr.€Beaty€filed€suit€in€the€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€CourtÏseeking€possession€of€the€rig€and€damages.€€His€application€of€the€writ€of€possession€recitedÏthat€Mr.€Beaty€already€had€possession€of€the€rig€but€that€he€was€ð ðin€need€of€an€orderÏconferring€the€right€to€possession.ðð€€The€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€Court€issued€aÏwrit€of€possession€on€April€3,€1992.€€After€the€entry€of€an€order€in€Mr.€Beatyððs€favor€on€JuneÏ2,€1992,€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€perfected€a€de€novo€appeal€to€the€Circuit€Court€forÏFentress€County.€€ÌÌà ` àThus,€by€April€1992,€the€parties€were€pursuing€similar€issues€in€both€the€Circuit€CourtÏfor€Roane€County€and€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fentress€County.€€In€the€Roane€CountyÏproceeding,€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€again€moved€to€dismiss€Mr.€Beatyððs€suit€forÏimproper€venue.€€On€October€5,€1992,€the€Circuit€Court€for€Roane€County€dismissed€Mr.ÏBeatyððs€suit€but,€to€Messrs.€McGrawððs€and€Brownððs€consternation,€made€no€ruling€on€whichÏparty€was€entitled€to€possession€of€the€drilling€rig€and€declined€to€consider€their€claim€forÏexemplary€damages€because€they€were€pursuing€a€claim€for€exemplary€damages€in€theÏFentress€County€proceeding.€€On€February€24,€1993,€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fentress€CountyÏentered€a€final€order€finding€that€Mr.€Beaty€was€entitled€to€possession€of€the€drilling€rig€butÏthat€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€could€obtain€possession€of€the€rig€by€paying€Mr.€BeatyÏ$25,000€within€thirty€days.€€The€court€did€not€award€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€exemplaryÏdamages.ÌÌà ` àMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€appealed€both€circuit€court€judgments.€€The€RoaneÏCounty€case€was€the€first€to€reach€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€A€panel€of€Western€Section€judges,Ïsitting€in€Knoxville,€held€that€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€were€entitled€to€damages€for€Mr.ÏBeatyððs€wrongful€taking€of€the€drilling€rig€and€remanded€the€case€with€directions€to€assessÏâ âthese€damages€once€the€circuit€court€determined€that€it€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€toÐ Y7©2B ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñdecide€the€claim.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€Beaty€v.€McGrawóó,€No.€03A01„9211„CV„00417,€1993€WL€119799Ð ° Ðâ â(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€16,€1993)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€In€the€secondÏdecision,€a€panel€of€Middle€Section€judges€affirmed€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fentress€CountyððsÏjudgment€awarding€Mr.€Beaty€$25,000€plus€prejudgment€interest€but€also€found€that€Mr.ÏBeaty€had€wrongfully€detained€the€drilling€rig.€€Accordingly,€the€court€remanded€the€case€toÏthe€circuit€court€for€the€consideration€of€damages.€€òòSee€Beaty€v.€McGrawóó,€No€01A01„9312„Ð ] ­  ÐCV„00544,€1994€WL€440897€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€17,€1994)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).€€ÌÌà ` àAt€this€point,€both€the€Roane€County€and€the€Fentress€County€actions€had€beenÏremanded€to€their€respective€trial€courts€with€instructions€to€determine€the€damages€due€toÏMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€for€Mr.€Beatyððs€wrongful€detention€of€the€drilling€rig.€€In€theÏRoane€County€proceeding,€the€circuit€court€was€to€assess€the€damages€from€March€13,€1992Ïthrough€April€3,€1992€ð!ð€the€time€that€Mr.€Beaty€held€the€rig€under€the€aegis€of€the€writ€ofÐ ¥õ Ðpossession€issued€by€the€Roane€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€In€the€Fentress€CountyÏproceeding,€the€circuit€court€was€to€assess€the€damages€from€April€3,€1992€through€mid„¼August,€1994€ð!ð€the€time€that€Mr.€Beaty€held€the€rig€under€the€writ€of€possession€issued€byÐ @  Ðthe€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€Court.׃P×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð É" ÐÌà ` àOn€October€28,€1994,€the€Circuit€Court€for€Roane€County€entered€an€order€findingÏthat€it€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€and€awarding€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€$1,885€inÏdamages€for€the€wrongful€detention€of€the€drilling€rig€from€March€13€to€April€3,€1992.€€TheÏcircuit€court€based€its€award€on€the€fair€monthly€rental€value€of€the€drilling€rig.׃ø×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð v&Æ!, ÐÌà ` àDuring€the€hearing€before€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fentress€County,€Messrs.€McGraw€andÏBrown€asserted€that€the€court€should€calculate€their€damages€using€the€same€calculation€thatÏhad€been€used€in€the€Roane€County€proceedings.€€The€circuit€court€chose€instead€to€base€itsÏdamage€calculation€on€the€actual€income€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€earned€from€theÐ #.s)6 Ðdrilling€rig€in€1991.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€determining€that€Mr.€Beaty€had€wrongfully€detained€the€drillingÐ ° Ðrig€under€the€writ€of€possession€issued€by€the€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€Court€forÏtwenty„nine€months,€the€circuit€court€awarded€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€$26,021€inÏdamages€plus€$8,000€in€attorneyððs€fees€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„30„110.€€Both€Mr.€BeatyÏand€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€have€appealed€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fentress€CountyððsÏApril€25,€1996€order.€€Thus,€we€consider€this€dispute€for€the€third€time.ÌÌà@ÕÕ.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ o¿  Ðà@áá!Dàòòò òThe€Collateral€Estoppel€Issueó óóóˆÐ øH  ÐÌà ` àWe€turn€first€to€the€collateral€estoppel€issue.€€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€assert€thatÏMr.€Beaty€is€collaterally€estopped€to€advance€any€measure€of€damages€for€his€wrongfulÏdetention€of€the€drilling€rig€other€than€the€fair€rental€value€of€the€rig€during€the€time€it€wasÏdetained€because€that€was€the€measure€of€damages€adopted€by€the€Circuit€Court€for€RoaneÏCounty.€€Mr.€Beaty€responds€that€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€are€impermissibly€seeking€toÏuse€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€offensively.€€Both€sides€are€mistaken.ÌÌà@ÛÛ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ É" ÐÌà ` àCollateral€estoppel€is€an€issue€preclusion€doctrine€devised€by€the€courts.€€òòSeeÐ Û!+& ÐDickerson€v.€Godfreyóó,€825€S.W.2d€692,€694€(Tenn.€1992);€òòGoeke€v.€Woodsóó,€777€S.W.2d€347,Ð d#´( Ð349€(Tenn.€1989);€òòMorris€v.€Esmark€Apparel,€Inc.óó,€832€S.W.2d€563,€565€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð í$= * Ð1991).€€Like€other€preclusion€doctrines,€its€purposes€are€to€conserve€judicial€resources,€toÏrelieve€litigants€from€the€cost€and€vexation€of€multiple€lawsuits,€and€to€encourage€relianceÏon€judicial€decisions€by€preventing€inconsistent€decisions.€òòSee€Allen€v.€McCurryóó,€449€U.S.Ð ˆ)Ø$0 Ð90,€94,€101€S.€Ct.€411,€414„15€(1980);€òòDisimone€v.€Browneróó,€121€F.3d€1262,€1267€(9th€Cir.Ð +a&2 Ð1997).ÌÌà ` àJudge€Friendly€succinctly€explained€issue€preclusion€when€he€observed€over€thirtyÏyears€ago€that€ð ð[w]here€the€litigants€have€once€battled€for€the€courtððs€decision,€they€shouldÏneither€be€required,€nor€without€good€reason€permitted,€to€battle€for€it€again.ðð€€òòZdanok€v.Ð ¾2.< ÐGlidden€Co.óó,€327€F.2d€944,€953€(2d€Cir.€1964).€€Thus,€as€our€courts€have€construed€theÐ G4—/> Ðcollateral€estoppel€doctrine,€it€bars€the€same€parties€or€their€privies€from€relitigating€in€aÏsecond€suit€issues€that€were€actually€raised€and€determined€in€an€earlier€suit.€€òòSee€MassengillÐ Y7©2B Ðv.€Scottóó,€738€S.W.2d€629,€631€(Tenn.€1987);€òòCollins€v.€Greene€County€Bankóó,€916€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð941,€945€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Stated€another€way,€when€an€issue€has€been€actually€andÏnecessarily€determined€in€a€former€action€between€the€parties,€that€determination€isÏconclusive€against€them€in€subsequent€litigation.€€òòSee€King€v.€Brooksóó,€562€S.W.2d€422,€424Ð K › Ð(Tenn.€1978);€òòAllied€Sound,€Inc.€v.€Neelyóó,€909€S.W.2d€815,€820€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð Ô $ ÐÌà ` àThe€party€seeking€to€rely€on€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€has€the€burden€€ofÏproof.€€òòSee€Dickerson€v.€Godfreyóó,€825€S.W.2d€at€695.€€To€invoke€the€doctrine€successfully,Ð o¿  Ðthe€party€must€demonstrate:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` à1.à0¸ ` (#` (#àthat€the€issue€sought€to€be€precluded€is€identical€to€the€issue€decided€inÐ Ñ  Ðthe€earlier€suit;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ї׸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à2.à0¸ ` (#` (#àthat€the€issue€sought€to€be€precluded€was€actually€litigated€and€decidedÐ “ã Ðon€its€merits€in€the€earlier€suit;׃p×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð™é¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à3.à0¸ ` (#` (#àthat€the€judgment€in€the€earlier€suit€has€become€final;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð¥õ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à4.à0¸ ` (#` (#àthat€the€party€against€whom€collateral€estoppel€is€asserted€was€a€partyÐ ± Ðor€is€in€privity€with€a€party€to€the€earlier€suit;׃À×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andз¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à5.à0¸ ` (#` (#àthat€the€party€against€whom€collateral€estoppel€is€asserted€had€a€full€andÐ Ã Ðfair€opportunity€in€the€earlier€suit€to€litigate€the€issue€now€sought€to€beÏprecluded.׃h ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ðϸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÌÓ€Óà ` àAt€common€law,€the€collateral€estoppel€doctrine€required€mutuality€of€the€parties€andÏcould€only€be€used€defensively.€€Thus,€a€defendant€traditionally€employed€the€doctrine€toÏprevent€a€plaintiff€from€relitigating€a€claim€that€the€plaintiff€has€previously€litigated€againstÏthe€defendant€and€lost.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€expanded€the€application€of€theÏcollateral€estoppel€doctrine€in€federal€courts€when€it€discarded€the€common„law€mutualityÏof€parties€requirement.€€òòSee€Parklane€Hosiery€Co.€v.€Shoreóó,€439€U.S.€322,€326„333,€99€S.€Ct.Ð Ž*Þ%, Ð646,€649„653(1979).Ð ,g'. Їà ` àThe€federal€courts€and€many€state€courts€now€òòóópermit€the€offensive€use€of€the€collateralÐ ° Ðestoppel€doctrine€in€two€ways.€€First,€the€doctrine€can€be€used€when€a€plaintiff€seeks€toÏforeclose€a€defendant€from€relitigating€an€issue€that€the€defendant€had€previously€litigatedÏunsuccessfully€in€another€action€against€the€same€plaintiff.€€This€form€of€collateral€estoppelÏis€commonly€referred€to€as€ð ðmutual€offensive€collateral€estoppelðð€because€the€parties€in€theÏtwo€proceedings€are€the€same.€€Second,€the€doctrine€can€be€used€when€a€plaintiff€seeks€toÏforeclose€a€defendant€from€relitigating€an€issue€that€the€defendant€had€previously€litigatedÏunsuccessfully€in€another€action€against€a€different€party.€€This€form€of€collateral€estoppelÏis€commonly€known€as€ð ðnonmutual€offensive€collateral€estoppel.ðð€€òòSee€United€States€v.Ð øH  ÐMendozaóó,€464€U.S.€154,€159€n.4,€104€S.€Ct.€568,€571€n.4€(1984);€òòParkland€Hosiery€Co.€v.Ð Ñ  ÐShoreóó,€439€U.S.€at€326€n.4,€99€S.€Ct.€at€649€n.4;€òòChicago€Truck€Drivers,€Helpers€andÐ  Z ÐWarehouse€Union€(Indep.)€Pension€Fund€v.€Century€Motor€Freight,€Inc.óó,€125€F.3d€526,€530Ð “ã Ðn.3€(7th€Cir.€1997).ÌÌà ` àOnly€a€small€number€of€states€presently€continue€to€adhere€to€the€mutuality€of€partiesÏrequirement.€€òòSeeóó€1B€James€W.€Moore€&€Jo€D.€Lucas,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€0.441[3.„Ð · Ð2]€(1995).€€Tennessee€is€one€of€these€states.€€Our€courts€have€repeatedly€declined€to€approveÏthe€use€of€nonmutual€offensive€collateral€estoppel.€€òòSee€Gann€v.€International€Harvester€Co.óó,Ð É" Ð712€S.W.2d€100,€101€(Tenn.€1986);€òòAlgood€v.€Nashville€Mach.€Co.óó,€648€S.W.2d€260,€261Ð R ¢$ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòsee€also€Leathers€v.€U.S.A.€Trucking,€Inc.óó,€No.€02A01„9109„CV„Ð Û!+& Ð00198,€1992€WL€37146,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€2,€1992)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed);€òòBeaman€Bottling€Co.€v.€Bennettóó,€No.€03A01„9103„CV„00091,€1991€WLÐ í$= * Ð218228,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€29,€1991)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed);òòÐ v&Æ!, ÐCarroll€v.€Times€Printing€Co.óó,€No.€596,€1987€WL€10332,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€5,€1987)Ð ÿ'O#. Ð(No€Tenn€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ÌÌà ` àWe€can,€however,€find€no€decision€in€which€an€appellate€court€of€this€state€hasÏaddressed€the€propriety€of€mutual€offensive€collateral€estoppel€ð!ð€that€is,€permitting€theÐ #.s)6 Ðplaintiff€to€foreclose€a€defendant€from€relitigating€an€issue€that€the€defendant€had€previouslyÏlitigated€unsuccessfully€in€another€action€against€the€same€plaintiff.׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€the€face€of€it,Ð 51…,: Ðpermitting€the€use€of€mutual€offensive€collateral€estoppel€seems€to€provide€all€the€benefitsÏof€the€issue€preclusion€doctrine€without€any€of€the€perceived€undesirable€consequences€ofÏnonmutual€offensive€collateral€estoppel.€Recognizing€the€doctrine€will€not€increase€the€totalÐ Ð5 1@ Ðamount€of€litigation,€and€it€will€not€necessarily€be€unfair€to€the€defendant.€€òòSee€Leathers€v.Ð ° ÐU.S.A.€Trucking,€Inc.óó,€1992€WL€37146,€at€*2€(discussing€the€undesirable€consequences€ofÐ 9‰ Ðnonmutual€offensive€collateral€estoppel).ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€we€find€that€trial€courts€may€permit€the€use€of€mutual€offensiveÏcollateral€estoppel€in€proper€circumstances.€This€decision€is€discretionary€with€the€trial€court.€ÏòòSee€Parklane€Hosiery€Co.€v.€Shoreóó,€439€U.S.€at€331,€99€S.€Ct.€at€651„52;€òòWinters€v.€DiamondÐ æ 6  ÐShamrock€Chem.€Co.óó,€149€F.3d€387,€391€(5th€Cir.€1998).€€Mutual€offensive€collateralÐ o¿  Ðestoppel€should€be€permitted€only€when€the€alignment€of€the€parties€and€the€legal€and€factualÏissues€warrant€it.€€òòSee€Nations€v.€Sun€Oil€Co.óó,€705€F.2d€742,€744„45€(5th€Cir.€1983).€€The€trialÐ Ñ  Ðcourtððs€discretion€has€its€limits,€and€the€trial€court€must€take€special€care€to€ensure€that€theÏoffensive€application€of€the€doctrine€does€not€work€a€hardship€on€the€party€against€whom€theÏestoppel€is€asserted.€€òòSee€Remington€Rand€Corp.€v.€Amsterdam„Rotterdam€Bank,€N.V.óó,€68Ð l ÐF.3d€1478,€1486€(2d€Cir.€1995);€òòRaytech€Corp.€v.€Whiteóó,€54€F.3d€187,€190€(3d€Cir.€1995).€Ð ¥õ ÐIn€exercising€its€discretion,€the€trial€court€may€consider€(1)€whether€the€plaintiff€could€haveÏjoined€the€former€suit€but€decided€instead€to€adopt€a€ð ðwait€and€seeðð€attitude,€(2)€whether€theÏdefendant€had€an€incentive€to€defend€the€former€suit€vigorously,€and€(3)€whether€theÏjudgment€on€which€the€plaintiff€seeks€to€rely€is€itself€inconsistent€with€previous€judgmentsÏagainst€the€defendant.€€òòSee€Parklane€Hosiery€Co.€v.€Shoreóó,€439€U.S.€at€330„31,€99€S.€Ct.€atÐ R ¢$ Ð651„52;€òòWinters€v.€Diamond€Shamrock€Chem.€Co.óó,€149€F.3d€at€391.Ð Û!+& ÐÌà@áá.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ í$= * ÐÌà ` àMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€assert€that€Mr.€Beaty€should€be€collaterally€estoppedÏfrom€relitigating€the€issue€of€the€applicable€measure€of€damages€for€his€wrongful€detentionÏof€the€drilling€rig€because€the€Circuit€Court€for€Roane€County€already€a€particular€measureÏof€damages€in€the€earlier€Roane€County€proceeding.€€Mr.€Beaty€responds€that€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€should€not€be€permitted€to€use€the€collateral€estoppel€doctrineÏoffensively.€€In€light€of€our€conclusion€that€the€collateral€estoppel€doctrine€can€be€usedÏoffensively€when€the€parties€in€both€suits€are€the€same,€we€find€that€Messrs.€McGraw€andÏBrown€may€invoke€the€collateral€estoppel€doctrine€if€they€can€demonstrate€that€all€theÏnecessary€ingredients€are€present.€€Accordingly,€we€must€examine€the€requirements€of€theÏcollateral€estoppel€doctrine€in€light€of€the€facts€of€this€case.ÌÌà ` àThis€appeal€implicates€the€first€two€requirements€for€the€collateral€estoppel€doctrineÐ â824D Ðð!ð€that€the€issue€sought€to€be€precluded€must€be€identical€to€the€issue€actually€litigated€andÐ k:»5F Ðdecided€on€the€merits€in€the€earlier€suit.€€We€must€decide€whether€the€choice€of€the€measureÏof€damages€for€Mr.€Beatyððs€wrongful€detention€of€the€drilling€rig€under€the€writ€of€possessionÏissued€by€the€Roane€County€General€Sessions€Court€is€the€same€issue€as€the€choice€of€theÏmeasure€of€damages€for€Mr.€Beatyððs€wrongful€detention€of€the€drilling€rig€under€the€later€writÏof€possession€issued€by€the€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€The€very€formulationÏof€the€issue€foretells€the€answer.ÌÌà ` àWhen€a€party€invokes€the€collateral€estoppel€doctrine,€the€court€must€first€ascertainÏwhat€issue€or€issues€were€actually€decided€in€the€first€proceeding.€€òòSee€Anvan€Realty€&Ð øH  ÐManagement€Co.€v.€Marksóó,€680€F.€Supp.€1247,€1249€(N.D.€Ill.€1988).€€For€the€purpose€of€thisÐ Ñ  Ðanalysis,€an€ð ðissueðð€is€any€disputed€point€or€question€raised€by€the€partiesðð€pleadingsÏconcerning€which€the€parties€desire€a€decision.€€òòSee€Paine€&€Williams€Co.€v.€Baldwin€RubberÐ “ã ÐCo.óó,€113€F.2d€840,€843€(6th€Cir.€1940);€òòMuller€v.€Mulleróó,€45€Cal.€Rptr.€182,€184€(Ct.€App.Ð l Ð1965);€òòIn€re€Powersóó,€493€N.W.2d€166,€169€(Neb.€1992);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Willow€GroveÐ ¥õ ÐVeterans€Home€Assððn,€Inc.óó,€509€A.2d€958,€961€(Pa.€Commw.€Ct.€1986);€1B€James€W.€MooreÐ .~ Ð&€Jo€D.€Lucas,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€0.443[2]€(1995).€The€court€must€then€determineÐ · Ðwhat€issue€or€issues€are€involved€in€the€second€proceeding€and€must€compare€the€issues€inÏthe€two€proceedings€to€determine€whether€they€are€identical.€€For€the€collateral€estoppelÏdoctrine€to€apply,€the€issue€sought€to€be€precluded€in€the€second€proceeding€must€beÏidentical,€not€merely€similar,€to€the€issue€decided€in€the€first€proceeding.€€òòSee€Farha€v.€FDICóó,Ð Û!+& Ð963€F.2d€283,€286€(10th€Cir.€1992);€òòFund€for€Animals,€Inc.€v.€Lujanóó,€962€F.2d€1391,€1399Ð d#´( Ð(9th€Cir.€1992).€€ÌÌà ` àThe€process€for€analyzing€the€identity€of€an€issue€will€vary€depending€on€whether€theÏissue€is€a€factual€or€legal€one.€€Judge€Feikens€has€explained€that€ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à[The€issue]€may€concern€only€the€existence€or€non„existence€ofÏcertain€facts,€or€it€may€concern€the€legal€significance€of€thoseÏfacts.€.€.€.€If€the€issues€are€ð ðmerely€evidentiaryðð,€they€need€onlyÏdeal€with€the€same€past€events€to€be€considered€identical.€ÏHowever,€if€they€concern€the€legal€significance€of€those€facts,Ïthe€legal€standards€to€be€applied€must€also€be€identical;€differentÏlegal€standards€as€applied€to€the€same€set€of€facts€create€differentÏissues.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓòòOverseas€Motors,€Inc.€v.€Import€Motors€Ltd.óó,€375€F.€Supp.€499,€518€n.66a€(E.D.€Mich.€1974).€Ð G4—/; ÐCourts€now€rely€on€the€following€four€inquiries€taken€from€the€Restatement€(Second)€ofÏJudgments€to€guide€their€analysis€of€the€identity€of€issues:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` à(1)à0¸ ` (#` (#àIs€there€a€substantial€overlap€between€the€evidence€or€argument€to€beÐ â824A Ðadvanced€in€the€second€proceeding€and€that€advanced€in€the€first?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÐ î:>6C Ðà8 ` à(2)à0¸ ` (#` (#àDoes€the€new€evidence€or€argument€involve€the€application€of€the€sameÐ ° Ðrule€of€law€as€that€involved€in€the€prior€proceeding?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à(3)à0¸ ` (#` (#àCould€pretrial€preparation€or€discovery€related€to€the€matter€presentedÐ Â Ðin€the€first€action€reasonably€be€expected€to€have€embraced€the€matterÏsought€to€be€presented€in€the€second?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à(4)à0¸ ` (#` (#àHow€closely€related€are€the€claims€involved€in€the€two€proceedings?ÐÚ *¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ€ÓRestatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ðð€27€cmt.€c€(1982);€òòsee€also€Disimone€v.€Browneróó,€121Ð æ 6  ÐF.3d€at€1267;€òòGreene€v.€United€Statesóó,€79€F.3d€1348,€1353€(2d€Cir.€1996);€òòMcLaughlin€v.Ð o¿  ÐBradleeóó,€803€F.2d€1197,€1203€(D.C.€Cir.€1986).Ð øH  ÐÌà@ÛÛ.Dàò òC.ó óˆÐ  Z ÐÌà ` àDeterminations€concerning€the€amount€of€damages€are€factually€driven.€€òòSee€LoftisÐ l Ðv.€Finchóó,€491€S.W.2d€370,€377€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1972).€Thus,€the€amount€of€damages€to€beÐ ¥õ Ðawarded€in€a€particular€case€is€essentially€a€fact€question.€€òòSee€Sholodge€Franchise€Sys.,€Inc.Ð .~ Ðv.€McKibbon€Bros.,€Inc.óó,€919€S.W.2d€36,€42€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);òò€Buice€v.€Scruggs€Equip.Ð · ÐCo.óó,€37€Tenn.€App.€556,€571,€267€S.W.2d€119,€125€(1953).€€However,€the€choice€of€theÐ @ Ðproper€measure€of€damages€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€decided€by€the€court.òò€€See€AmericanÐ É ÐTrust€Inv.€Co.€v.€Nashville€Abstract€Co.óó,€39€S.W.€877,€881€(Tenn.€Chan.€App.€1896);òò€see€alsoÐ R ¢! ÐBusiness€Mensðð€Assurance€Co.€v.€Grahamóó,€891€S.W.2d€438,€449€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòTownÐ Û!+# Ðof€Fifield€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,€349€N.W.2d€684,€686€(Wis.€1984).€€Ð d#´% ÐÌà ` àDamages€for€the€wrongful€detention€of€property€may€be€measured€either€by€the€fairÏmarket€rental€value€of€the€property€for€the€period€of€detention,€òòsee€Stanley€v.€Donohoóó,€84Ð ÿ'O#+ ÐTenn.€492,€494€(1886),€or€by€the€net€profit€lost€during€the€detention€period.€òòSee€AmericanÐ ˆ)Ø$- ÐBldgs.€Co.€v.€DBH€Attachments,€Inc.óó,€676€S.W.2d€558,€562„63€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);Ð +a&/ ÐòòSummers€&€Lewis€v.€Sandersonóó,€7€Tenn.€App.€624,€627„28€(1928).€€In€the€Roane€CountyÐ š,ê'1 Ðproceeding,€the€trial€court€used€the€fair€market€rental€value€of€the€property€to€calculate€theÏdamages€for€the€three„week€detention€of€the€property.€€In€the€Fentress€County€proceeding,Ïthe€trial€court€chose€the€net€profit€measure€of€damages.€€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€insistÏthat€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€required€the€trial€court€in€Fentress€County€to€use€theÏsame€measure€of€damages€€that€the€Roane€County€trial€court€used.€€We€disagree€because€allÏthe€elements€necessary€for€the€invocation€of€collateral€estoppel€do€not€exist€with€regard€toÏthis€issue.Ìâ âÐ â824A Ðà ` àMatters€adjudged€as€to€one€period€of€time€are€not€necessarily€an€estoppel€as€to€otherÏâ âtime€periods.€€òòSee€International€Shoe€Machine€Corp.€v.€United€Shoe€Machinery€Corp.óó,€315Ð 9‰ ÐF.2d€449,€455€(1st€Cir.€1963).€€The€value€of€the€propertyððs€use€may€have€been€less€if€usedÏover€one€period€of€time€as€opposed€to€another.€€òòSee€Stanley€v.€Donohoóó,€84€Tenn.€at€494.€€€TheÐ K › Ðmeasure€of€damages€for€a€long„term€deprivation€of€personal€property€cannot€necessarily€beÏreliably€calculated€by€extrapolating€the€damages€for€a€short„term€deprivation€over€a€longerÏterm.€€òòSee€Perkins€v.€Brownóó,€132€Tenn.€294,€299,€177€S.W.€1158,€1160€(1915)€(rejecting€theÐ æ 6  Ðcalculation€of€damages€for€the€loss€of€use€of€an€automobile€for€twelve€weeks€based€on€theÏrental€charge€for€the€automobile€for€one€week).ÌÌà ` àThe€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€does€not€apply€in€this€case€because€of€theÏsignificant€factual€differences€between€the€three„week€detention€of€the€drilling€rig€under€theÏRoane€County€writ€of€attachment€and€the€29„month€detention€under€the€Fentress€County€writÏof€attachment.€While€the€nature€of€the€claims€in€the€two€proceedings€are€similar,€there€is€noÏoverlap€between€the€facts€adduced€in€the€Roane€County€proceeding€and€those€adduced€in€theÏFentress€County€proceeding.€€In€addition,€the€Fentress€County€proceeding€called€for€anÏapplication€of€different€legal€principles€because€the€ability€of€Messrs.€McGraw€and€BrownÏto€mitigate€their€damages€would€have€been€greater€during€the€long€term,€as€opposed€to€theÏshort€term.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€the€use€of€a€piece€of€heavy€equipment€like€aÏdrilling€rig€that€may€very€well€be€fixed€over€a€short€period€of€a€few€weeks€can€easily€changeÏover€a€period€of€years.€€Profit€opportunities€come€and€go;€planned€and€unplannedÏmaintenance€varies;€deployment€of€the€machinery€can€change;€the€competitive€environmentÏsurrounding€the€use€of€the€equipment€can€change;€and€even€the€tax€consequencesÏsurrounding€the€use€and€depreciation€of€the€equipment€can€change.€€Therefore,€the€factualÏdifferences€between€the€period€of€detention€under€the€Roane€County€writ€of€possession€andÏthe€period€of€detention€under€the€Fentress€County€writ€of€detention€justified€the€FentressÏCounty€trial€courtððs€choice€of€a€measure€of€damages€different€from€the€one€employed€by€theÏtrial€court€in€Roane€County.ÌÌà@««-Dàò òIII.ˆÐ 51…,: Ðà@ DàòòThe€Calculation€of€Damages€for€Wrongful€Detentionóóó óˆÐ ¾2.< ÐÌà ` àMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€also€contend€that€the€trial€court€miscalculated€theirÏdamages€and€erred€by€not€awarding€them€exemplary€damages.€For€his€part,€Mr.€Beaty€assertsÏthat€the€evidence€that€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€presented€with€regard€to€their€damagesÏdid€not€support€the€amount€of€damages€the€trial€court€awarded.€€We€have€determined€that€theÐ k:»5F Ðtrial€courtððs€damage€calculation€is€supported€by€the€facts€and€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏdeclined€to€award€exemplary€damages.ÌÌà@ÀÀ.Dàò òA.€ó óˆÐ K › Ðà@WW%Dàòòò òCompensatory€Damagesó óóóˆÐ Ô $ ÐÌà ` àBoth€parties€assert€that€the€trial€court€did€not€give€appropriate€weight€to€Mr.€BrownððsÏtestimony€about€the€damages€from€the€wrongful€detention€of€the€drilling€rig.€€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€assert€that€the€trial€court€did€not€give€enough€weight€to€Mr.€BrownððsÏtestimony€concerning€their€loss€of€a€potential€contract€with€the€federal€government;€whileÏMr.€Beaty€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did€not€give€sufficient€weight€to€Mr.€Brownððs€concessionÏthat€his€income€actually€increased€after€Mr.€Beaty€repossessed€the€drilling€rig.€€ÌÌà ` àCompensatory€damages€are€intended€to€compensate€the€wronged€party€for€the€loss€orÏinjury€sustained€by€the€wrongdoerððs€conduct.€€òòSee€Inland€Container€Corp.€v.€Marchóó,€529Ð .~ ÐS.W.2d€43,€44€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€goal€is€to€restore€the€wronged€party,€as€nearly€as€possible,Ïto€the€position€the€party€would€have€been€in€had€the€wrongful€conduct€not€occurred.€ÏDamages€need€not€be€calculated€with€mathematical€precision,€òòsee€Provident€Life€&€AccidentÐ É" ÐIndem.€Co.€v.€Globe€Ins.€Co.óó,€156€Tenn.€571,€576,€3€S.W.2d€1057,€1058€(1928);€òòBuice€v.Ð R ¢$ ÐScruggs€Equip.€Co.óó,€37€Tenn.€App.€at€571,€267€S.W.2d€at€125;€they€need€only€be€proved€withÐ Û!+& Ðreasonable€certainty.€€òòSee€Act„O„Lane€Gas€Serv.€Co.€v.€Clintonóó,€35€Tenn.€App.€442,€456,€245Ð d#´( ÐS.W.2d€795,€802€(1951).€€ÌÌà ` àWhether€the€trial€court€has€utilized€the€proper€measure€of€damages€is€a€question€of€lawÏthat€we€review€do€novo.€€òòSee€generally€Sexton€v.€Sevier€Countyóó,€948€S.W.2d€747,€749€(Tenn.Ð ˆ)Ø$0 ÐCt.€App.€1997).€€On€the€other€hand,€the€amount€of€damages€actually€awarded,€where€theÏamount€is€within€the€limits€set€by€law,€is€a€question€of€fact.€€òòSee€Spence€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,Ð š,ê'4 Ð883€S.W.2d€586,€594€(Tenn.€1994);òò€Reagan€v.€Wolsiefferóó,€34€Tenn.€App.€537,€542,€240Ð #.s)6 ÐS.W.2d€273,€275€(1951).€€In€cases€where€the€trial€court€is€hearing€the€case€without€a€jury,€weÏreview€the€amount€of€damages€awarded€by€the€trial€court€with€the€presumption€that€it€isÏcorrect,€and€we€will€alter€the€amount€of€damages€only€when€the€trial€court€has€adopted€theÏwrong€measure€of€damages€or€when€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€amount€ofÏdamages€awarded.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòArmstrong€v.€Hickman€County€HighwayÐ Ð5 1@ ÐDepððtóó,€743€S.W.2d€189,€195€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€Ð Y7©2B Ðâ âÐ â824D Ðà ` àWe€have€already€concluded€that€the€trial€court€was€free€to€select€the€measure€ofÏâ âdamages€most€appropriate€to€the€facts€of€this€case€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€byÏchoosing€to€calculate€Messrs.€McGrawððs€and€Brownððs€damages€based€on€their€net€lost€profitsÏduring€the€twenty„nine€months€that€Mr.€Beaty€had€the€drilling€rig.€€Thus€the€only€remainingÏarea€of€inquiry€concerns€the€factual€support€for€the€trial€courtððs€damage€award.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€appears€to€have€given€relatively€little€weight€to€Mr.€Brownððs€testimonyÏconcerning€the€anticipated€contract€with€the€federal€government.€€Instead,€the€trial€courtððsÏmemorandum€opinion€shows€that€it€placed€greater€weight€on€Mr.€Brownððs€1991€federalÏincome€tax€return.€€Trial€courts€are€not€bound€to€accept€any€particular€witnessððs€testimonyÏconcerning€damages.€€òòSee€Cole€v.€Cliftonóó,€833€S.W.2d€75,€77€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);Ð  Z ÐòòTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Hinsonóó,€651€S.W.2d€235,€238€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€Ð “ã ÐWhile€the€record€may€very€well€support€a€different€damage€award,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€discounting€Mr.€Brownððs€testimony€about€his€anticipated€profits€and€byÏbasing€its€damage€award€on€the€amount€of€income€that€Mr.€Brown€was€actually€earning€withÏthe€drilling€rig€before€Mr.€Beaty€repossessed€it.€€ÌÌà ` àMr.€Brown€also€testified€that€he€and€Mr.€McGraw€spent€ð ðprobably€five€thousandÏdollarsðð€to€return€the€drilling€rig€to€the€condition€it€had€been€in€before€Mr.€Beaty€repossessedÏit€and€that€it€would€take€an€additional€ð ðfive€to€ten€thousandðð€dollars€to€complete€the€repairs.€ÏHowever,€he€could€produce€repair€bills€for€only€$759.02€.€€The€trial€court€awarded€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€$646.21€after€deducting€what€appear€to€be€itemized€fuel€expenses€fromÏthe€repair€bills€that€Mr.€Brown€produced.€€In€light€of€Mr.€Brownððs€inability€to€substantiateÏthe€other€repair€costs,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€award€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€more€damages€for€repairs€to€the€drilling€rig.ÌÌà@áá.Dàò òB.ˆÐ š,ê'4 Ðà@'DàòòExemplary€Damagesóóó óˆÐ #.s)6 ÐÌà ` àMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€also€contend€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awardedÏthem€exemplary€damages€in€light€of€the€manner€in€which€Mr.€Beaty€obtained€the€writ€ofÏpossession€from€the€Fentress€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„30„¼210(a)€permits€awarding€exemplary€damages€for€wrongfully€obtaining€a€writ€of€possessionÏif€the€wrongdoerððs€actions€have€departed€from€the€type€of€conduct€that€society€has€the€rightÏto€expect.€€òòSee€Huckeby€v.€Spangleróó,€563€S.W.2d€555,€558„59€(Tenn.€1978).€€An€exemplaryÐ â824D Ðdamage€award€must€be€preceded€by€an€award€for€actual€damages.€€òòSee€Whittington€v.€GrandÐ k:»5F ÐÑ!*Ñâ !âÑÑÑ  Ñâ !âÑ  ÑValley€Lakes,€Inc.óó,€547€S.W.2d€241,€243€(Tenn.€1977).€€The€decision€to€award€exemplaryÐ ° Ðdamages€rests€with€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€òòSee€Foster€v.€Jeffersóó,€813€S.W.2d€449,€454Ð 9‰ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà ` àWhen€Mr.€Beaty€sought€a€writ€of€possession€from€the€Fentress€County€GeneralÏSessions€Court,€he€alleged€that€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€had€reneged€on€their€promiseÏto€sign€a€written€contract€for€the€purchase€of€the€drilling€rig€and€had€failed€to€pay€the€balanceÏdue€on€the€drilling€rig.€€He€also€alleged€that€ð ðthe€drilling€rig€was€obtained€byÏmisrepresentation€insofar€as€the€defendant€Bobby€McGraw€represented€that€he€and€[Mr.ÏBrown]€would€complete€the€transaction.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Even€though€neither€the€order€granting€theÐ Ñ  Ðpossessory€writ€nor€the€writ€itself€is€in€the€record,€we€assume€that€the€general€sessions€courtÏissued€the€writ€on€the€ground€that€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€obtained€the€writ€throughÏmisrepresentations.€ÌÌà ` àAfter€the€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€assessment€of€damages,€Mr.ÏBeaty€was€asked€ð ðNow,€with€respect€to€Mr.€Brown€and€Mr.€McGraw,€have€either€of€themÏmisrepresented€anything€to€you€in€their€conduct€towards€you?ðð€€Mr.€Beaty€responded,€ð ðNo,Ïtheyððve€not€in€any€way.€€I€mean,€just€that€they€wasnððt€paying.ðð€€Messrs.€McGraw€and€BrownÏhave€seized€on€this€answer€as€a€basis€for€insisting€that€they€are€entitled€to€collect€exemplaryÏdamages€because€Mr.€Beaty€knowingly€made€untrue€statements€in€his€application€for€the€writÏof€possession.ÌÌà ` àLooking€at€the€trial€record€as€a€whole,€we€cannot€say€that€this€brief€exchange€betweenÏMr.€Beaty€and€counsel€contradicts€the€statements€in€Mr.€Beatyððs€sworn€application€for€a€writÏof€possession.€€During€the€same€line€of€questioning,€Mr.€Beaty€was€also€asked€if€he€had€ð ðanyÏreason€to€believe€that€an€action€for€the€recovery€of€this€drilling€rig€was€the€proper€action€toÏtake.ðð€€He€replied,€ð ðWell,€we€had€a€contract€and€[Mr.€Brown]€kept€saying€he€would€get€itÏsigned.€€I€thought€we€had€a€legal€right€to€pick€[the€rig]€up€anywhere€it€was.ðð€€This€responseÏis€completely€consistent€with€the€allegations€in€Mr.€Beatyððs€application€for€a€writ€ofÏpossession.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€had€the€discretion€in€the€first€instance€to€determine€whether€the€factsÏof€this€case€warranted€awarding€exemplary€damages€against€Mr.€Beaty.€€The€trial€court€heardÏall€the€evidence€and€was€not€convinced€that€Mr.€Beaty€swore€falsely€in€his€application€for€theÐ Y7©2B Ðwrit.€€While€the€cited€passages€from€Mr.€Beatyððs€testimony€could€be€read€more€than€one€way,Ïwe€will€not,€from€this€distance,€place€the€trial€court€in€error€for€its€interpretation€of€Mr.ÏBeatyððs€testimony.€€Having€considered€the€arguments€of€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown,€weÏcannot€say€that€the€trial€erred€by€determining€that€this€was€not€a€case€for€exemplary€damagesÏunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„30„210(a).ÌÌà@±±.Dàò òIV.ˆÐ æ 6  Ðà@!DàòòThe€Award€of€Attorneyððs€Feesóóó óˆÐ o¿  ÐÌà ` àAs€a€final€matter,€we€turn€to€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€award€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€$8,000€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€Mr.€Beaty€takes€issue€with€this€awardÏbecause€the€proof€concerning€the€reasonableness€of€these€fees€does€not€differentiate€betweenÏthe€time€spent€unsuccessfully€defending€Mr.€Beatyððs€breach€of€contract€action€and€the€timeÏspent€pursuing€their€own€wrongful€possession€claim.€€ÌÌà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„30„110€permits€a€trial€court€to€award€a€party€reasonableÏattorneyððs€fees€as€exemplary€damages€for€the€ð ðwrongful€suing€out€of€[a]€possessory€actionÏor€in€the€event€that€the€plaintiff€fails€to€prosecute€the€action€after€it€has€been€instituted.ðð€€InÏthe€earlier€appeals€of€this€case,€this€court€held€that€Mr.€Beaty€had€failed€to€prosecute€theÏRoane€County€action,€òòsee€Beaty€v.€McGrawóó,€1993€WL€119799,€at€*4,€and€that€Mr.€BeatyÐ Û!+& Ðlacked€any€basis€for€instituting€the€possessory€action€in€Fentress€County.€€òòSee€Beaty€v.Ð d#´( ÐMcGrawóó,€1994€WL€440897,€at€*2„3.€€These€findings€gave€the€trial€court€sufficientÐ í$= * Ðjustification€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€in€its€discretion.€€However,€even€though€Messrs.ÏMcGraw€and€Brown€might€have€been€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€for€their€successful€actionÏfor€wrongful€possession,€they€were€not€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€for€unsuccessfullyÏdefending€against€Mr.€Beatyððs€breach€of€contract€claim.€€Mr.€Beaty€prevailed€on€that€claim.€ÏòòSee€Beaty€v.€McGrawóó,€1994€WL€440897,€at€*3.€Ð š,ê'4 ÐÌà ` àMessrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€had€the€burden€of€proving€the€amount€of€their€legal€feesÏfor€vindicating€their€rights€to€possession€of€the€drilling€rig.€€òòSee€In€re€Estate€of€Perlbergóó,€694Ð 51…,: ÐS.W.2d€304,€309€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)€(holding€that€the€burden€of€establishing€a€reasonableÏattorneyððs€fee€is€on€the€party€claiming€it);€òòCook€&€Nichols,€Inc.€v.€Peat,€Marwick,€MitchellÐ G4—/> Ð&€Co.óó,€480€S.W.2d€542,€545€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1971).€€When€a€party€substantiates€a€claim€forÐ Ð5 1@ Ðattorneyððs€fees,€the€trial€court€has€a€duty€to€award€a€reasonable€fee.€òòSee€Taylor€v.€T€&€NÐ Y7©2B ÐOffice€Equip.,€Inc.óó,€No.€01A01„9609„CV„00411,€1997€WL€2724444,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð â824D ÐMay€23,€1997)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€Ð k:»5F ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  ÑÌà ` àWe€are€significantly€handicapped€in€considering€the€propriety€of€the€attorneyððs€feeÏaward€in€this€case€because€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€failed€to€provide€records€making€itÏpossible€to€determine€the€amount€of€time€their€lawyers€devoted€to€defending€Mr.€BeatyððsÏbreach€of€contract€action€and€the€amount€of€time€their€lawyers€spent€prosecuting€theirÏwrongful€possession€claim.€€The€fee€awarded€by€the€trial€court€likewise€cannot€be€traced€backÏto€the€time€the€lawyers€representing€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€devoted€solely€to€theirÏclientsðð€wrongful€possession€claim.€€ÌÌà ` àWith€the€record€in€its€present€state,€we€are€unable€either€to€determine€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€award€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€$8,000€for€the€legal€expenses€wasÏreasonable€or€to€make€an€award€of€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€ourselves.€€Therefore,€we€haveÏno€choice€other€than€to€vacate€this€portion€of€the€judgment€and€remand€the€case€for€theÏreconsideration€of€the€attorneyððs€fee€issue.€€€The€trial€court€should€set€a€reasonable€fee€basedÏon€the€time€that€the€lawyers€for€Messrs.€McGraw€and€Brown€spent€on€their€wrongfulÏpossession€claim€and€should€evaluate€the€requested€fee€in€light€of€the€factors€found€in€Tenn.ÏS.€Ct.€R.€8,€DR€2„106(b).€€òòSee€Taylor€v.€T€&€N€Office€Equip.,€Inc.óó,€1997€WL€272444,€at€*5.€Ð @  ÐÌà@ÛÛ.Dàò òV.ó óˆÐ R ¢$ ÐÌà ` àWe€affirm€all€portions€of€the€judgment€except€for€the€$8,000€award€of€attorneyððs€feesÏwhich€we€vacate€and€remand€for€further€proceedings€in€accordance€with€this€opinion.€€WeÏtax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€in€equal€proportions€to€Guy€Beaty€and,€jointly€and€severally,€toÏBobby€McGraw€and€Steve€Brown€and€their€surety€for€which€execution,€if€necessary€mayÏissue.ÌÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,ÌPRESIDING€JUDGE€,€M.S.ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEñõñ€Ð  è985A ÐÔ€ gš!‹ŠðßÔÔ‡„Ü:„‹ŠðßÔò òÑ8€»»»d»»d8Ñà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ#† gš!„„Ü:•´#ԈРh ÐÌÔ‡¼»»‹ŠðßÔÌGUY€BEATY,à0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)ÐÚ *€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)à0p€%€%àFentress€CircuitÔ#† gš!»¼»–µ#ÔÔ‡¼»»‹ŠðßÔÐ Zp€%p€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àNo.€6969Ð" rp€%p€% ÐVS.à0 ` àà0¸ ` €%` €%àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ð:Š €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à0 p àAppeal€No.ÐR¢ p€%p€% ÐBOBBY€McGRAW€andà0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)à0p€%€%à01A01„9701„CV„00046Ô#† gš!»¼»ù¶#ÔÔ‡¼»»‹ŠðßÔÐjº p€%p€% ÐSTEVE€BROWN,à0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%à)Ð‚Ò €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendants/Appellants.à0 À àà0À€%À€%à)в €%€% ÐÌÔ#† gš!»¼»S¹#Ôò òà@cc(DàòòJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ â2 ÐÌÔ€Šðß‹! gšÔÓ€Óà ` àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€Fentress€CountyÐ f¶ ÐCircuit€Court,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€arguments€of€counsel.€€Upon€consideration€of€theÏentire€record,€this€court€finds€and€concludes€that€the€trial€judgeððs€judgment€should€beÏaffirmed€in€part€and€vacated€in€part.ÌÌà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€contemporaneously€with€this€judgment,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered,€adjudged,€and€decreed€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€be€and€is€herebyÏaffirmed€in€part€and€vacated€in€part,€and€that€the€cause€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€courtððs€opinion.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€further€ordered€that€the€costs€of€this€appeal€be€taxed€in€equal€proportions€to€GuyÏBeaty€and,€jointly€and€severally,€to€Bobby€McGraw€and€Steve€Brown,€principals,€and€JamesÏP.€Smith,€Jr.,€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÓ€Óñìñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñìñ_________________________________Ìñíñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñíñHENRY€F.€TODD,Ìñîñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñîñPRESIDING€JUDGE€,€M.S.ÌÌÌñïñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñïñ_________________________________Ìñðñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñðñSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€ñññÌÌÌññññòñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_________________________________ñòññóñÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñóññõññôññóñwckñóññôññõññôñWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEñôññóñ€ñóññõñ