ÿWPCN …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáðw@ø8 @ H P 0LX 0J¤ 0Tî 0^B 0h  0r 0|z 0†ö 0| 1u U, 0d­ 0N B_U,|U6¨B)ÞDC D3J AM}U*Ê 0@ô$4v~XvÓÖ AO©Æø 0D¾ D/ B1˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ ½Q x°°3|x  ó Dô õ Dö ÷ Dø ù ú Dû Ó€ > ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌAugust€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€^MXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑERNIE›€G.€CHANDLER€andà à)ÌEVA€CHANDLER,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9603„CV„00124Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àWilson€Circuità à̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€+.);+'h|ÏJ` ç `€€Lß›CECIL€J.€JOHNSON€andà à)à àNo.€9270ÌBARBARA€JOHNSON,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€'¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€WILSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€LEBANON,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€BOBBY€CAPERS,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€'XÔBOB€LYNCH,€JR.Ì222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSuite€316ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€B.€JAKES,€IIIÌHowell€&€FisherÌCourt€Square€BuildingÌ300€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201„1107Ìà àœATTORNEY›€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€'¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓÔ€'°ÔOÔ€'¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€'XÔà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiffs/appellants,€Ernie€G.€andÏEva€Chandler,€from€the€trial€court's€order€granting€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€of€defendants/appellees,€Cecil€J.€and€BarbaraÏJohnson,€and€dismissing€plaintiffs'€complaint.ÌÌà àThe€facts€out€of€which€this€case€arose€are€as€follows.€€OnÏ30€September€1993,€Mr.€Chandler€entered€into€a€lease€withÏdefendants€to€lease€a€building€located€in€Lebanon,€Wilson€County,ÏTennessee.€€The€lease€was€for€a€specific€building,€and€defendantsÏspecifically€reserved€their€rights€to€the€property€around€theÏbuilding.€€Defendants€purchased€the€property€at€a€foreclosure€saleÏsome€period€of€time€before€the€parties€entered€into€the€lease.€ÏThe€property€included€three€commercial€buildings€which€previousÏoccupants€had€used€as€a€car€dealership€and€a€body€shop.€€AfterÏdefendants€purchased€the€property,€they€decided€to€lease€eachÏbuilding€separately.€€They€contacted€the€City€of€Lebanon€and€hadÍseparate€electrical€meters€installed€for€each€building.ÌÌà àMr.€Chandler€testified€at€his€deposition€that€he€hadÏseveral€conversations€with€Mr.€Johnson€prior€to€entering€into€theÏlease.€€Mr.€Chandler€testified€that€he€specifically€asked€Mr.ÏJohnson€if€the€electrical€system€was€up€to€codes€and€that€Mr.ÏJohnson€assured€him€it€was.€€He€also€testified€that€he€was€told€byÏMr.€Johnson€that€he€did€not€need€to€purchase€insurance€for€sixÏmonths€if€that€would€help€him€in€getting€his€business€started.€ÏAccording€to€plaintiffs'€proof,€Mr.€Johnson€also€told€Mr.€ChandlerÏthat€he€would€keep€the€electricity€in€his€name€so€that€Mr.ÏChandler€would€not€have€to€pay€the€$500.00€deposit.ÌÌà àPrior€to€leasing€the€building,€Mr.€Johnson€gave€Mr.ÏChandler€an€opportunity€to€inspect€the€premises€as€often€and€forÏas€long€as€he€wished.€€Mr.€Chandler€exercised€this€right€andÏinspected€the€building.€€He€admitted€that€a€key€was€available€soÏhe€could€inspect€the€building€at€any€time€before€signing€theÏlease.€€The€record€also€revealed€that€Mr.€Chandler€was€aÏsophisticated€and€well„educated€businessman€with€degrees€in€bothÏbusiness€and€criminal€justice.€€He€also€had€extensive€experienceÏoperating€numerous€profitable€business€enterprises.ÌÌà àAfter€Mr.€Chandler€moved€into€the€building,€he€wasÏelectrocuted€and€suffered€serious€personal€injuries.€€On€14€MarchÏ1995,€plaintiffs€filed€a€complaint€against€defendants.€€In€theÍcomplaint,€plaintiffs€alleged€that€the€electrocution€resulted€fromÏa€combination€of€two€events.€€First,€it€was€raining€and€water€hadÏentered€the€building€and€was€standing€in€Mr.€Chandler's€office.€ÏSecond,€as€Mr.€Chandler€sat€in€a€chair€with€his€feet€in€the€water,Ïhe€leaned€backward€and€his€head€touched€an€electrical€outlet.€€HeÏsuffered€a€severe€electrical€shock€when€his€head€came€into€contactÏwith€the€outlet.€€Plaintiffs€further€alleged€that€defendants€wereÏliable€for€his€injuries€because€the€building's€electrical€systemÏwas€defective€and€because€defendants€failed€to€repair€theÏcondition€of€the€land€immediately€adjacent€to€the€leased€premisesÏdespite€Mr.€Chandler€notifying€them€of€the€problem.ÌÌà àOn€14€August€1995,€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€Defendants€alleged€that€the€"as€is"€and€exculpatoryÏclauses€precluded€plaintiffs'€claims.€€The€trial€court€heard€oralÏargument€on€4€October€1995.€€Thereafter,€the€court€made€theÏfollowing€findings:ÌÓÓà8 àAfter€reviewing€the€entire€record€and€hearing€theÏarguments€of€counsel€for€the€parties,€the€Court€wasÏof€the€opinion€that€an€issue€of€fact€exists€as€toÏwhether€or€not€the€defendant€was€guilty€ofÏnegligence€and,€if€so,€whether€the€negligenceÏproximately€caused€the€plaintiffs'€injuries€andÏdamages.€€The€Court€was€further€of€the€opinion€thatÏthe€issue€of€fact€concerning€the€defendant'sÏnegligence€was€immaterial€in€light€of€the€"as€is"Ïand€indemnity€provisions€of€the€Lease€Agreement€andÏthat€the€defendants€were,€therefore,€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌÓÓPlaintiffs€appealed€and€presented€the€following€two€issues€whichÏwe€discuss€together.€€ÌÓÓà8 à€€A.€Did€the€trial€court€err€when€it€grantedÏSummary€Judgment€on€behalf€of€Defendants€when€itÏheld€that€exculpatory€and€indemnificationÏprovisions€of€the€lease€precluded€Plaintiff'sÏclaim,€when€Plaintiff€alleged€that€the€cause€of€hisÏinjury€occurred€because€Defendant€failed€to€repairÏthe€land€surrounding€the€leased€premises€whichÏPlaintiff€did€not€control€under€the€lease?€€ÌÌà8 à€€B.€Did€the€trial€court€err€when€it€grantedÏSummary€Judgment€on€behalf€of€Defendants€when€itÏheld€that€the€"as€is",€exculpatory€andÏindemnification€provisions€of€the€lease€precludedÏPlaintiffs'€claim.€[sic]ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àSummary€judgment€may€be€granted€"if€the€pleadings,Ïdepositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,Ïtogether€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law."€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï56.03€(Supp.€1995).€€This€court€reviews€the€decision€below€de€novoÏapplying€the€same€Rule€56€analysis€as€did€the€trial€court.€Ïòòò òGonzales€v.€Alman€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44„45€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1993).€€One€who€files€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€has€theÏburden€of€establishing€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€ofÏmaterial€fact€and€that€the€law€entitles€the€moving€party€to€aÏjudgment.€€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€(Tenn.€1993).€€AfterÏthe€moving€party€makes€a€properly€supported€motion,€the€burdenÏshifts€and€the€nonmoving€party€must€ð ðset€forth€specific€facts,€notÏlegal€conclusions,€by€using€affidavits€or€the€discovery€materialsÏlisted€in€Rule€56.03,€establishing€that€there€are€indeed€disputed,Ïmaterial€facts€creating€a€genuine€issue€that€needs€to€be€resolvedÍby€the€trier€of€fact€and€that€a€trial€is€therefore€necessary.ðð€Ïòòò òId.€óóó ó€In€addition,€Rule€56€expressly€provides€that€ð ðan€adverseÏparty€may€not€rest€upon€the€mere€allegations€or€denials€of€theÏadverse€party's€pleading.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05€(Supp.Ï1995).€€ð ðA€disputed€fact€is€material€if€it€must€be€decided€inÏorder€to€resolve€the€substantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€theÏmotion€is€directed.ðð€€òòò òByrdóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.€€A€genuine€issueÏexists€when€ð ða€reasonable€jury€could€legitimately€resolve€thatÏfact€in€favor€of€one€side€or€the€other.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€asserted€in€their€brief€that€defendants€"alteredÏthe€electrical€system€by€setting€in€a€separate€meter€base€at€theÏpremises."€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€support€thisÏcontention.€€To€the€contrary,€the€undisputed€facts€are€that€theÏonly€thing€defendants€did€was€to€contact€the€utility€company€toÏinstall€the€meters.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€they€did€any€workÏto€the€building€or€that€any€electrical€work€was€done€to€theÏbuilding€after€they€purchased€the€property.ÌÌà àThe€lease€agreement€entered€into€between€the€parties€andÏits€terms€are€undisputed.€€The€lease€provided:€€"Lessee€hasÏinspected€said€premises€and€by€the€execution€of€the€Lease€acceptsÏsame€in€its€present€condition.€€Lessee€is€to€maintain€and€to€makeÏall€repairs€to€the€building,€including€the€roof€and€outside€walls,Ïat€Lessee's€expense."€€The€lease€also€required:€€ÌÓÓà8 àLessee,€at€Lessee's€own€cost€and€expense,€shallÍcomply€promptly€with€all€laws,€rules€and€orders€ofÏall€federal,€state€and€municipal€governments€orÏdepartment€code€specifications€for€alterations,Ïrepairs€and€additions€which€may€be€applicable€toÏthe€leased€premises,€and€shall€likewise€promptlyÏcomply€with€the€requirements€of€the€issuer€of€anyÏinsurance€policy€concerning€the€demised€premises.ÌÌœ›ÓÓAs€to€the€electrical€and€utility€systems,€the€lease€provided:€Ï"The€Lessee€covenants€and€agrees€to€maintain€the€electrical€systemÏand€utility€system€at€Lessee's€expense.€€Lessee€to€take€suchÏsystems€in€their€'as€is'€condition."ÌÌà àThe€lease€also€contained€two€separate€exculpatoryÏprovisions€which€insulated€defendants€from€liability€to€plaintiffsÏfor€any€reason.€€The€clauses€were€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ)` Üä ‚XœÈ„XØ'X)Óà8 àà à12)à àINDEMNITY€AND€INSURANCE.€€Lessee€shallÏindemnify€Lessor€against€and€hold€Lessor€harmlessÏfrom€any€and€all€claims€or€demands€for€loss€of€orÏdamage€to€property€or€for€injury€or€death€to€anyÏperson€from€any€cause€whatsoever€while€in,€upon,€orÏabout€the€demised€premises€during€the€term€of€thisÏlease€or€any€extension€thereof.Ìà àà à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà à20)à àINDEMNIFICATION.€€Lessee€shall€indemnifyÏand€hold€harmless€Lessor€and€Lessor's€agents,Ïsuccessors€and€assigns,€from€and€against€allÏinjury,€loss,€claims€or€damage€(including€attorneyÏfees€and€disbursements),€to€any€person€or€propertyÏarising€from,€related€to,€or€in€connection€with€theÏuse,€and€occupancy€of€the€leased€premises.€€AllÏproperty€of€Lessee€in€or€about€the€premises€shallÏbe€kept€and€stored€at€Lessee's€sole€risk€and€LesseeÏshall€hold€Lessor€harmless€from€any€claims€arisingÏout€of€damages€to€the€same.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiffs€contended€that€the€parties€entered€into€variousÏother€agreements€regarding€the€subject€property€before€executingÏthe€written€lease€agreement.€€The€written€lease,€however,€œprovides›Ías€follows:€€ÌÓÓÓ)` Üä ‚XœÈƒX€%ŽX)Óà8 àà à(d)€This€lease€embodies€the€entire€agreementÏand€understanding€between€the€parties,€andÏsupersedes€all€prior€negotiations,€agreements€andÏunderstandings.€€Any€provision€of€this€lease€may€beÏmodified,€waived€or€discharged€only€by€anÏinstrument€in€writing€signed€by€the€party€againstÏwhich€enforcement€of€such€modification,€waiver€orÏdischarge€is€sought.Ìà àà à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà à(g)à àNeither€Lessor€nor€any€agent€of€LessorÏhas€made€any€representations,€warranties€orÏpremises€with€respect€to€the€premises€except€asÏherein€expressly€set€forth.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWhen€construing€the€meaning€of€an€"as€is"€clause€in€a€leaseÏfor€commercial€real€property,€this€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àEssentially€an€"as€is"€clause€means€that€the€buyerÏor€lessee€is€purchasing€or€leasing€the€goods€orÏproperty€as€it€is€in€its€present€state€orÏcondition.€€This€generally€implies€that€theÏproperty€is€taken€with€whatever€faults€it€mayÏpossess€and€implies€that€the€seller€or€lessor€isÏreleased€of€any€obligation€to€reimburse€theÏpurchaser€or€lessee€for€losses€or€damages€thatÏresult€from€the€condition€of€the€goods€or€property.ÌÌòòò òÓÓJaffe€v.€Boltonó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€19,€25€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€ThisÏcourt€further€stated€that€when€property€is€leased€"as€is"€bothÏparties€are€charged€with€knowledge€of€the€existence€of€anyÏproblems€including€code€violations.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Considering€the€aboveÏlaw€and€facts,€defendants€are€not€liable€to€plaintiffs€for€anyÏalleged€defects,€including€problems€with€the€electrical€system,Ïfor€the€following€reasons:€1)€the€lease€provided€that€Mr.€ChandlerÏwas€leasing€the€property€"in€its€present€condition";€2)€Mr.ÏChandler€accepted€the€electrical€system€"as€is";€and€3)€Mr.ÏChandler€exercised€his€right€to€inspect€the€premises€prior€toÍentering€into€the€lease€agreement.€ÌÌà àNext,€plaintiffs€claimed€that€summary€judgment€was€improperÏdespite€the€existence€of€the€exculpatory€clauses.€€Their€firstÏargument€was€that€the€clauses€were€ambiguous.€€It€is€well€settledÏin€this€state€that€a€landlord€may,€by€stipulation€in€a€commercialÏlease€agreement,€exempt€himself€from€liability€for€any€damageÏcaused€by€defects€in€the€leased€premises.€€ò òòòSee€Gilson€v.€Gilliaó óóó,Ï45€Tenn.€App.€193,€210„11,€321€S.W.2d€855,€863€(1958);€ò òòòRobinsonÏv.€Tateó óóó,€34€Tenn.€App.€215,€227„31,€236€S.W.2d€445,€450„51€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1950).€€In€the€instant€case,€Mr.€Chandler€agreed€to€indemnifyÏdefendants€and€to€hold€them€harmless€"from€any€and€all€claims€orÏdemands€for€loss€or€damaged€property€or€for€injury€or€death€to€anyÏperson€from€any€cause€whatsoever."€€Although€plaintiffs€arguedÏthat€the€exculpatory€provisions€of€the€lease€were€ambiguous,€theyÏfailed€to€offer€any€proof€by€affidavit€or€otherwise€that€they€didÏnot€understand€or€comprehend€the€exculpatory€language€of€the€leaseÏagreement€before€they€entered€into€it.€€Thus,€plaintiffs€failed€toÏsatisfy€their€burden€as€to€this€issue.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs'€second€argument€is€more€complex.€€To€explain,Ïthey€claimed€that€a€cause€of€the€injury€was€the€condition€of€theÏadjacent€real€property€which€allowed€water€to€enter€the€building.€ÏœThey›€then€pointed€out€that€the€adjacent€real€property€was€not€partÏof€the€leased€premises.€€Plaintiffs€relied€on€òòò òSummers€HardwareÏand€Supply€Co.€v.€Steeleóóó ó,€794€S.W.2d€358€(Tenn.€App.€1990),€andÍargued€that€the€exculpatory€clauses€did€not€apply€to€the€areas€notÏincluded€in€the€leased€premises.€€Unfortunately€for€plaintiffs,Ïthis€argument€is€without€effect.€€It€is€our€opinion,€unlike€thatÏof€the€trial€court,€that€plaintiffs€failed€to€establishÏdefendants'€liability.€€Thus,€œplaintiffs›€could€not€recover€even€ifÏthe€exculpatory€provisions€were€not€in€the€lease.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€law€"does€not€place€upon€[a€commercial]€landlordÏthe€obligation€of€an€insurer€or€warrantor€by€contract,€nor€does€itÏimpose€the€extreme€duty€of€constant€care€and€inspection."€Ïò òòòGlassman€v.€Martinó óóó,€196€Tenn.€595,€597,€269€S.W.2d€908,€909Ï(1954).€€ÌÓÓà8 àThe€common€law€of€landlord€liability€in€TennesseeÏhas€long€been€established.€€In€this€state,€aÏlandlord€is€liable€to€a€tenant€on€the€ground€ofÏnegligence,€not€of€contract,€for€an€injuryÏresulting€from€an€unsafe€or€dangerous€condition€ofÏleased€premises€that€was€in€existence€at€the€dateÏof€the€lease,€if€the€landlord€by€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€care€should€have€known,€or€for€a€greaterÏreason,€if€he€had€actual€knowledge€of€the€conditionÏof€the€premises;€provided,€however,€that€as€of€theÏdate€of€the€accident€the€tenant€did€not€haveÏknowledge€or€could€not€by€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€care€have€had€knowledge€of€suchÏcondition.€€However,€the€landlord€is€not€liable€inÏtort€for€dangerous€conditions€or€premises€leased€toÏthe€tenant€arising€after€the€delivery€of€possessionÏto€the€tenant.€€ò òòòÌÌÓÓMaxwell€v.€Davco€Corp.ó óóó,€776€S.W.2d€528,€531„32€(Tenn.€App.Ï1989).€€In€ò òòòBobo€v.€Harrisó óóó,€1994€WL€71531€(Tenn.€App.€1994),€theÏplaintiff,€a€lessee€of€commercial€property,€sued€the€lessor€forÏdamages€sustained€as€a€result€of€alleged€problems€with€theÏbuilding's€electrical€system.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*€1.€€The€trial€courtÍgranted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant/lessor.€€TheÏwestern€section€held€that,€under€Tennessee€law,€a€landlord€is€notÏliable€in€tort€for€the€dangerous€condition€of€the€premises€leasedÏto€the€tenant€when€the€condition€arises€after€delivery€to€orÏpossession€by€the€tenant.€€Because€the€plaintiff€in€ò òòòBoboó óóó€failed€toÏoffer€any€proof€that€a€defect€existed€at€the€time€the€partiesÏentered€into€the€lease€agreement,€the€western€section€affirmed€theÏtrial€court.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*2„*3.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€it€contained€nothingÏwhich€would€support€a€judgment€against€defendants€who€wereÏcommercial€lessors€of€property.€€First,€there€was€no€proof€of€theÏexistence€of€any€defect€or€problem€with€the€electrical€system€orÏthe€adjacent€real€property€at€the€time€the€parties€executed€theÏlease.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€failed€to€establish€that€defendantsÏhad€any€knowledge€of€a€dangerous€condition€or€the€existence€of€anyÏdefect€at€the€time€the€parties€entered€into€the€lease€agreement.Ìà8 àÌà àAs€to€the€electrical€system,€plaintiffs€asserted€thatÏdefendants€"altered€the€electrical€system€by€setting€in€a€separateÏmeter€base€at€the€premises."€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€toÏsupport€this€contention.€€To€the€contrary,€the€undisputed€factsÏare€that€the€only€thing€defendants€did€was€to€contact€the€utilityÏcompany€to€install€the€meters.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€they€didÏany€work€to€the€building€or€that€any€electrical€work€was€done€toÏthe€building€after€they€purchased€the€property.ÌÌà àAs€to€the€adjacent€real€property,€plaintiffs€not€onlyÏfailed€to€establish€that€water€leaked€into€the€building€prior€toÏthe€execution€of€the€lease€or€that€defendants€had€knowledge€ofÏsuch€an€occurrence,€but€they€also€failed€to€establish€that€theÏcondition€of€the€real€property€caused€the€water€to€enter€theÏbuilding.€€First,€plaintiffs€did€not€offer€any€evidence€regardingÏwhether€this€had€happened€in€the€past€or€regarding€defendant'sÏknowledge.€€Second,€they€relied€upon€certain€unsworn€allegationsÏin€the€complaint€and€Mr.€Johnson's€deposition€testimony€toÏestablish€that€the€condition€of€the€land€caused€water€to€enter€theÏbuilding.€€Under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.05€theÏopponent€of€a€properly€supported€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÏprohibited€from€resting€upon€the€mere€allegations€or€denials€œin›Ïthe€pleadings.€€Instead,€the€rule€requires€opponents€to€set€forthÏspecific€facts€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€byÏintroducing€affidavits€or€other€forms€of€admissible€evidence.€ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05€(Supp.€1995).€€œPlaintiffs'›€other€form€ofÏevidence,€Mr.€Johnson's€deposition,€failed€to€create€a€genuineÏissue€of€fact.€€Specifically,€Mr.€Johnson€testified€that€Mr.ÏChandler€told€him€that€water€was€coming€into€the€building.€€HeÏthen€testified€that€this€had€never€happened€before€and€that€theÏparties€never€determined€the€cause€of€the€leak€prior€to€theÏaccident.€€Plaintiffs€failed€to€establish€the€existence€of€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€by€contradicting€this€testimony.€Ìà àÌà àFollowing€our€review€of€this€record,€we€are€of€the€opinionÏthat€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€summary€judgment€in€favorÏof€defendants.€€Therefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed€with€costs€on€appeal€assessed€to€theÏplaintiffs/appellants,€Ernie€G.€and€Eva€Chandler.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€any€further€necessary€proceedings.€Ïà àà àà àÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌ