ÿWPC“  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µÝw@å4% 9 UPH 0l˜ 0D 0JH 0T’ Bæ 0^ 0ha 0rÉ 0|; 0†· 0= 1uÍ 0dB D3¦U>ÙU 6 0@MB)DC¶ AMùU*Fp`€ŠàZjÙÄv~vÓ AOîÆ= 0D D/G Bv ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,hh,,,0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ õ ö D÷ ø Dù ú Dû Dü ý þ Ó€·‚^!3|x &@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òFebruary€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔOriginally€named€as€a€defendant€in€this€case,€Balboa€settled€with€Ms.ÏCatlett,€and€her€complaint€against€the€insurance€company€was€dismissed€byÏagreement.Ì €Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€Chancellor€believed€Ms.€Catlettððs€version€of€her€discussions€withÏMr.€Outlaw;€however,€this€determination€of€credibility€is€not€directlyÏpertinent€to€the€basis€of€our€judgment€in€this€case.Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔMr.€Chinery€was€also€a€defendant€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€awardedÏMs.€Catlett€a€judgment€against€him€for€$19,750.€€Mr.€Chinery€did€not€appeal.Ì ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔOn€this€òòde€novoóó€review,€we€are€called€upon€to€pass€upon€the€correctnessÏof€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€and€ð ðnot€necessarily€the€reasoning€employed€toÏreach€the€›result.ðð€€òòò òShelter€Insurance€Companies€v.€œHann›ó óóó,€921€S.W.2d€194,Ï202€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ P ÑÔ€,ÔÑ7€ÂXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌLINDA€FAITH€CATLETT,à àà à€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9608„CH„00247̜ـ€ÙßR€02/A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€œ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)ÌœDOUG€CHINERY€d/b/a€HAMILTONà à€€)ÌPLACE€INSURANCE,€BALBOA€LIFEà à€€)Ì&€CASUALTY€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à à€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌNATIONAL€CASUALTY€COMPANY,à à€€)€HAMILTON€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌand€TAMMY€LEPAGE€COLLINS,à à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àDefendants,à àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà à€€)ÌUNITED€COMPANIES€FINANCIALà à€€)ÌCORPORATION,€d/b/a€UNITEDà à€€)ÌCOMPANIES€LENDING€CORPORATION,€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€HONORABLE€R.€VANN€OWENS,Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à€€)€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌJERRY€WOODS€WEEKSà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€T.€ALTÌœChattanooga,€Tennessee›à àà àà àELIZABETH€G.€ALTÌœà àà àà àà à›à àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔÔ€,ÔÌÌ̛̜ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÓÓà àà àThis€œsuit›€finds€its€genesis€in€a€January€14,€1994,€fireÏthat€substantially€damaged€the€mobile€home€of€the€plaintiff,€LindaÏFaith€Catlett.€€Ms.€Catlett€filed€a€complaint€against€œtwo›Ïœindividuals›€and€a€number€of€companies,€including€the€defendantÏUnited€Companies€Financial€Corporation€(United),€seeking€toÏrecover€for€losses€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€fire.€€HerÏcomplaint€against€United,€the€holder€of€the€mortgage€debt€on€herÏproperty,€also€œsought›€a€declaration€that€her€obligation€to€UnitedÏœhad›€been€œsatisfied›€in€full.€€United€filed€a€counterclaim,€which,Ïamong€other€requests,€œprayed›€that€it€ð ðbe€œpermitted€.€.€.€to›Ïenforce€its€œ.€.€.€lien›€againstðð€the€plaintiffððs€œproperty.€€The›ÏChancellor€held€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€recover€a€monetaryÏjudgment€against€United.€€Among€œother›€rulings,€œsome›€of€which€areÏnot€œrelevant›€œto›€œthis›€appeal,€the€Chancellor€accredited€theÏtestimony€of€the€plaintiff€and€consequently€found€that€ð ðwrongfulÍconductðð€on€the€part€of€United€ð ðbars€it€from€recovery€against€theÏplaintiff€for€any€deficiencyðð€on€the€mortgage€debt.€€TheÏChancellor€œfound›€œthat€the€evidence€indicated€United€could€have€andÏshould€have€recovered€sufficient€proceeds€from€an€insurance›€policyÏissued€by€Balboa€Life€and€Casualty€Insurance€Company€œ(Balboa)€toÏpay€the€mortgage€debt€in€full.€€United›€appealed,€arguing€that€theÏChancellor€erred€when€he€œdismissed€its€counterclaim€seeking€toÏenforce€the€lien€of€its€mortgage.›ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àà à€In€August,€1992,€Ms.€Catlett€met€with€Steve€Outlaw€ofÏUnited€œand€requested€a›€loan€to€consolidate€the€existing€mortgagesÏon€her€mobile€home€and€œlot.›€€œBased€upon€an€appraisal€of€$66,200,ÏUnited›€agreed€to€loan€her€$49,600.€€Mr.€Outlaw€œadvised€Ms.›€CatlettÏœthat›€the€œlender€required€that€the€property›€œbe›€œinsured›€by€œaÏcasualty€policy.›€€According€to€Ms.€Catlett,€Mr.€Outlaw€agreed,€atÏher€request,€to€obtain€insurance€œfor›€œher.›€€He€told€her€that€aÏportion€of€her€loan€payment€would€cover€the€premium€for€theÏinsurance.ÌÌà àà àUnited€proceeded€to€acquire€insurance€through€Balboa.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏThe€œBalboa›€œinsurance›€policy€provides€coverage€for€physical€loss€orÏdamage€to€structures€on€the€property;€however,€it€does€not€coverÏcontents.€€Ms.€Catlett€testified€that€she€had€understood€she€wasÏreceiving€ð ðfull€coverage€insuranceðð,€i.e.,€insurance€against€fire,Ïtheft,€and€accident,€on€the€mobile€home€as€well€as€her€contents.€ÏMr.€Outlawððs€testimony€on€this€point€was€somewhat€conflicting.€€HeÏfirst€stated€that€he€did€not€remember€what€he€had€told€Ms.€CatlettÏabout€the€kind€of€insurance€United€œintended€to€purchase;›€however,Ïhe€then€testified€that€he€generally€advises€borrowers€to€obtainÏseparate€coverage€for€their€personal€property,€and€that€he€hadÏinformed€Ms.€Catlett€that€the€œBalboa€insurance›€œwould€cover€only›Ïstructures.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àIn€September,€1993,€œa€year€after€the€loan€was€made,€Ms.›ÏCatlett€received€a€letter€from€United€describing€the€policy€œthat›Ïit€had€obtained€through€œBalboa.›€€The€letter,€œwhich€is€also›Íreferred€to€in€the€record€as€a€ð ðnotice€of€coverageðð,€provides€thatÏthe€policy€œonly€insures€against€physical›€damage€to€œstructures,›€andÏnot€damage€to€personal€property.€€Ms.€Catlett€contends€that€thisÏwas€the€first€time€she€was€aware€that€she€did€not€have€ð ðfullÏcoverage.ðð€€After€receiving€the€letter,€Ms.€Catlett€soughtÏœadditional›€coverage,€but€due€to€a€family€crisis,€she€was€unable€toÏapply€for€new€coverage€until€the€following€January.€€On€JanuaryÏ13,€1994,€she€signed€an€application€with€œan€insurance€agent,€DougÏChinery€doing€business€as€Hamilton›€Place€œInsurance,× ƒ5 ××  ×›€and€paid€herÏinitial€premium.€€The€following€day,€her€home€was€substantiallyÏdamaged€in€a€fire€caused€by€an€electrical€malfunction.ÌÌà àà àA€claims€œadjuster,€who€was€contacted€by€the€adjusterÏretained€by€Balboa,€determined›€that€the€cost€to€repair€the€œdamage›Ïœto€the€mobile€home€was›€$49,242.47.€€Ms.€Catlett€was€told€that€theÏœBalboa€policy›€required€œthat€she›€continue€œto€make›€payments€toÏUnited€while€œrepairs›€were€being€made,€and€that€Balboa€would€notÏpay€the€total€amount€of€the€loss€until€the€home€was€rebuilt.€€œMs.ÏCatlett€refused€to€have€the€damage€repaired.›€€ÌÌà àœà àUnited›€œreceived›€a€payment€on€the€policy€from€Balboa€inÏthe€amount€of€$32,467.43.€€United€then€sought€to€enforce€itsÏmortgage€lien€œin€order€to›€recover€the€balance€œof›€Ms.€œCatlettððsÏobligation.›€€œUnited›€claims€that€it€is€entitled€to€recoverÏ$19,297.84,€representing€the€balance€of€the€loan,€interest€andÏattorney€fees.€€As€noted€earlier,€the€Chancellor€disagreed€andÏfound€that€United€was€not€entitled€to€any€œrelief,›€due€in€part€toÏœhis€finding€that€United€should€have€recovered€the€full€amount€ofÏthe€balance€of€the€Catlett€obligation€from€Balboa.Ì›Ìà@ àIIÌÌà àà àIn€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€ÏRule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.;€ò òòòHackett€v.€Smith€Countyó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€695,Ï699€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€ò òòòSmith€v.€œJarnagin›ó óóó,€436€S.W.2d€310,€313Ï(Tenn.€App.€1968).ÌÌà àà àThe€Chancellorððs€holding€that€United€was€precluded€fromÏrecovering€the€balance€of€the€loan€from€Ms.€Catlett€was€basedÏprimarily€on€œfour›€œgrounds:›€œfirst,›€œhe€found€that€United€had€had€aÍconflict€of€interest;€that€United€wrongly€failed€to€act€as€Ms.ÏCatlettððs€agent,€as€it€had€agreed€to€do,€when€it€secured€insuranceÏto€protect€its€interest€but€not€that€of€Ms.€Catlett;€second,›€thatÏit€made€certain€misrepresentations€to€Ms.€Catlett;€œthird,›€thatÏUnited€breached€its€obligation€to€Ms.€Catlett€to€obtain€meaningfulÏinsurance€coverage€on€her€behalf;€and€œfourth,›€œthat€the€evidenceÏshowed€United€was€entitled€to€recover€and€should€have€recoveredÏfrom€Balboa€the€full€balance€of€the€Catlett€obligation€owing€as€ofÏthe€date€of€the€fire.›€€Because€we€find€that€the€ChancellorððsÏœfourth›€rationale€is€sufficient€to€sustain€his€œdecision,›€œwe€do€notÏfind€it€necessary€to€reach€the›€œother€bases›€of€the€courtððs€judgmentÏœor€the€issues€raised€by€United€with€respect€to€those€matters.›× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àA€party€seeking€to€enforce€a€mortgage€obligation€has€theÏburden€of€proving€the€balance€of€the€indebtedness.€€ò òòòState€v.ÏHollandóóó ó,€367€S.W.2d€791,€797€(Tenn.€App.€1962).€€Thus,€in€orderÏto€enforce€its€mortgage€lien,€United€is€required€to€prove€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€there€is€a€balance€owing€on€theÏmortgage€debt€after€application€of€the€proceeds€œthat€were€due›€fromÍBalboa€under€the€terms€of€the€fire€insurance€policy.€€We€find€thatÏthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€ChancellorððsÏdetermination€that€United€failed€to€prove€that€there€was€a€balanceÏdue,€i.e.,€failed€to€prove€that€it€had€recovered€all€that€it€wasÏentitled€to€recover€under€the€Balboa€policy.ÌÌà àà àœAt€the€time€of€the€fire,€there€was€a€balance€due€on€Ms.›ÏœCatlett›ððs€note€of€approximately€$47,000.€€œAs€previously€noted,€the›Ïamount€œpaid›€by€Balboa€was€only€$32,467.43.€€The€œnotice€of€coverageÏletter›€received€by€Ms.€Catlett€in€September,€1993,€provides€thatÏthe€œmaximum€amount›€of€coverage€under€the€Balboa€policy€œis›€$59,000.€ÏThe€policy€contains€the€following€pertinent€provisions:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIII.€LIMITS€OF€RECOVERYÌÌà àà àà8 àThe€maximum€amount€of€coverageÏapplicable€to€a€risk€insuredÏhereunder€shall€be€the€net€loanÏbalance€or€previous€insured€amountÏas€reported€by€the€Insured.ÌÌà àà àà8 àThe€liability€of€the€company€shallÏnot€exceed€the€least€of€theÏfollowing€after€the€applicableÏdeductible€stated€in€this€Policy:ÌÌà àà àà8 àA.€€The€amount€of€coverage€shown€onÏthe€coverage€œletter€[i.e.,€$59,000];›Ìà àà àà8 àB.€€The€replacement€cost€of€thatÏpart€of€the€building€or€dwelling€andÏother€structures€for€equivalentÍconstruction€and€use€on€the€sameÏpremises;€orÌà àà àà8 àC.€€The€amount€which€it€would€costÏto€repair€or€replace€the€damaged€orÏdestroyed€real€property€withÏmaterial€of€like€kind€and€qualityÏwithin€a€reasonable€time€after€theÏloss.ÌÌÌÌThe€policy€also€provides€thatÌÌÌÌà àà8 à[œw]hen›€the€cost€to€repair€or€replace€theÏdamage€is€more€than€$1000€or€more€than€5%€ofÏthe€amount€of€insurance€in€this€policy€on€theÏbuilding,€whichever€is€less,€[Balboa]€will€payÏno€more€than€the€actual€cash€value€of€theÏdamage€until€actual€repair€or€replacement€isÏcompleted.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àTrudy€Rushing€of€United€testified€that€since€Ms.€CatlettÏdid€not€repair€her€mobile€home€after€the€fire,€Balboa€was€onlyÏobligated€to€pay€the€ð ðreplacement€costðð€and€not€the€ð ðactual€cashÏvalue.ðð€€She€opined€that€this€was€the€reason€United€acceptedÏ$32,467.43,€the€amount€of€the€loss€determined€by€œBalboa.›€€We€findÏher€reasoning€œflawed›€and€her€œjustification€for€accepting€theÏlesser€amount€unpersuasive.›ÌÌà àà àThe€Balboa€œpolicy›€was€œobviously€issued›€for€the€purposeÏof€giving€United€some€measure€of€protection€with€respect€to€theÍrecovery€of€œits›€debt€in€the€event€of€a€œfire€or€other€specifiedÏcasualty€event.›€€œAt€a€minimum,€Balboa›€was€obligated€under€theÏpolicy€for€the€lesser€of€œfour›€amounts:€$59,000;€ð ðreplacementÏcostðð;€œð ðcost›€to€repair€or€œreplaceðð;€or€the€balance€of€the€loan€atÏthe€time€of€the€casualty€event.›€€Neither€ð ðreplacement€costðð€norÏð ðcost€to€repair€or€replaceðð€are€defined€in€the€policy.€€While€theyÏare€stated€separately,€they€both€œinclude›€the€œconcept€ofÏreplacement€cost.›€€One€œuses›€the€word€œð ðreplaceðð;›€the€other€uses€aÏderivative€of€the€word.€€œIn€our€opinion,€the›€provision€isÏœambiguous.›€€That€ambiguity€is€to€be€construed€against€the€drafterÏof€the€policy,€œBalboa.€€òòSee€ò òGredig€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€MutualÏInsurance€Companyó óóó,€891€S.W.2d€909,€912€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€ÏBecause€of€this€ambiguity,€we€find€that€United€was€entitled€to€theÏlesser€of€three€amounts„„$59,000,€the€cost€to€rectify€the€damageÏdone€by€the€fire,€or€the€balance€of€the€loan.€€While€the€policyÏmay€have€attempted€to€state€a€fourth€alternative,€it€failed€to€doÏso€in€an€intelligible€manner.›ÌÌà àà àThe€Chancellor€apparently€concluded€that€$49,242.47,€theÏcost€to€repair€the€fire„damaged€portion€of€the€mobile€œhome,€or€theÏbalance€due€on€the€Catlett€obligation,€whichever€amount€was€less,›Ïwas€the€amount€to€which€United€was€entitled€under€the€terms€of€theÍpolicy.€€The€appellant€is€not€correct€when€it€argues€that€BalboaÏœdid€not€have›€to€pay€œanything›€until€the€plaintiff€repaired€theÏstructure.€€That€is€not€what€the€policy€says.€€The€policy€clearlyÏœprovides›€that€the€insurer€will€pay€œð ðòòno€moreóó›€than€the€actual€cashÏvalue€of€the€damage€until€actual€repair€or€replacement€isÏcompleted.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€The€plaintiff€is€not€contendingÏthat€Balboa€should€have€paid€ð ðmoreðð;€but€rather€that€it€shouldÏhave€paid€œthe›€ð ðactual€cash€value€of€the€œdamage,ð𛀀œor€the€loanÏbalance,€whichever€was€less.€€Since›€the€cost€of€repairing€theÏstructure€was€$49,242.47,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€Chancellorððs€finding€that€United€failed€to€show€thatÏthe€full€amount€of€its€mortgage€loan€due€at€the€time€of€the€œfire,Ïi.e.,€approximately€$47,000,›€was€not€covered€by€the€Balboa€policy.€ÏThe€plaintiff€should€not€be€penalized€because€United€failed€toÏrecover€an€amount€sufficient€to€pay€its€loan€in€full„„a€recoveryÏto€which€œUnited›€was€entitled€under€the€terms€of€the€Balboa€policy.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€no€indication€œin›€the€record€that€UnitedÏconducted€any€independent€investigation€or€calculation€of€œthe›Ïamount€of€the€loss,€or€the€correct€amount€due€under€the€policy.€ÏIn€fact,€Ms.€Rushing€stated€that€United€completely€ð ðrelied€on€JackÏœHowlett,ðð€the€adjuster€hired€by€Balboa,€who€pegged€the€loss€atÍ$32,467.43.›€€She€was€unaware€whether€anyone€at€United€had€evenÏread€the€policy€to€check€the€accuracy€of€œHowlett›ððs€calculations€orÏto€make€any€assessment€of€their€own€as€to€the€amount€owed€byÏBalboa.€€In€fact,€there€is€no€evidence€that€anyone€at€UnitedÏquestioned€œHowlett›ððs€determination€in€any€way.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€the€record€offers€little€indication€as€toÏwho€at€United€was€responsible€for€accepting€Balboaððs€offer€ofÏ$32,467.43€as€payment€on€the€claim.€€Ms.€Rushing€stated€her€beliefÏthat€Dale€Quick,€a€senior€vice€president€at€United,€had€reached€anÏagreement€with€Balboa€to€accept€that€amount.€€Mr.€Quick,€however,Ïtestified€that€he€had€not€spoken€with€anyone€at€Balboa€aboutÏadjusting€the€loss,€and€that€he€did€not€know€who€at€United€hadÏreached€the€agreement€with€Balboa.€€Quick€did€sign€a€hold€harmlessÏagreement€on€behalf€of€United,€which€was€provided€to€Balboa€ð ðsoÏthat€the€loan€would€be€paid€off.ðð€€He€testified€that€he€signed€theÏagreement€only€in€his€capacity€as€an€officer€of€the€corporation,Ïand€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€the€surrounding€circumstances.€ÏThus,€we€are€left€with€the€fact€that€United€accepted€the€amount€ofÏ$32,467.43€from€Balboa,€but€with€no€satisfactory€explanation€as€toÏwhy€it€did€not€recover€the€full€amount€due€and€owing€on€theÏmortgage€at€the€time€of€the€œfire.ÌÌà àà àGiven€the€lack€of€proof€on€this€issue,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€ChancellorððsÏfindings.€€There€is€substantial€evidence€to€suggest€that€UnitedÏwas€entitled€to€recover€the€full€balance€of€Ms.€Catlettððs€loanÏunder€the€Balboa€insurance€policy.€€Therefore,€the€ChancellorÏproperly€concluded€that€United€had€not€carried€the€burden€of€proofÏnecessary€to€recover€the€balance€of€the€mortgage,€and€enforce€itsÏlien.€€Because€we€find€this€rationale€sufficient€to€sustain€theÏChancellorððs€decision,€we€deem€it€unnecessary€to€consider€hisÏadditional€findings,€which€involve€the€representations€made€byÏUnited€to€Ms.€Catlett€with€regard€to€the€extent€of€coverage,€andÏthe€obligation€of€United€to€secure€meaningful€coverage€on€herÏbehalf.ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏChancellorððs€determination€that€United€should€not€be€permitted€toÏenforce€the€lien€of€its€mortgage.€€If€there€is€no€balance€due€onÏthe€loan,€there€can€be€no€lien.›ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÍthe€trial€court€for€œenforcement€of€its€judgment€and€collection›€ofÏcosts€assessed€there,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌœ___________________________›ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌœ___________________________›ÌœClifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.€J.›