ÿWPCÆ …# VUDa %¥ 0(«4Óç 0”öŠ w"Š 0J¬ 0Tö 0^J 0h¨ 0r 0|‚ 0†þ 0„ 1u U,‰ 0dµ U,B)EDCn AM±U*þ(v~@ B¾vÓÛ D3® 0@á AO!Æp 0D6 D/z B©˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡nnG 3|x_(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóRDSÓ€]^_2 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% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMarch€15,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  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  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€'kXXdìdÈ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌCONTINENTAL€INSURANCE€COMPANY,à àDavidson€Circuit€No.€92C„970€€ÌSubrogee€of€Entertainmentà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€€01A01„9507„CV„00298ÌTechnical€Services,€Inc.,à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Barbara€N.€Haynes,ÏJudgeÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà àà àÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|2 ` ç `€€LßÌvs.ÌÌM.€T.€GOSSETT,ÌÌà àDefendant/Appellant.ÌÌJ.€MATTHEW€POWERS,€Leitner,€Warner,€Moffitt,€Williams,€Dooley,€ÌCarpenter,€&€Napolitan,€Nashville,ÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌRUDICK€J.€MURPHY,€II,€Blackard€&€Murphy,€Nashville,ÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/AppellantÌÌò òòòAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REVERSED€IN€PARTóóó óÌÌOpinion€Filed:ÌÌ_________________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.Ìó óÌà àÓÓContinental€Insurance€Company€(ð ðplaintiffðð)€as€subrogee€ofÏEntertainment€Technical€Services,€Inc.€(ð ðEntertainmentðð€or€ð ðinsuredðð)Ífiled€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€against€M.T.€GossettÏ(ð ðdefendantðð)€for€damages€sustained€as€a€result€of€defendantððs€negligence.€ÏFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€awarded€plaintiff€damages€in€theÏamount€of€$11,308.09€plus€attorneyððs€fees€in€the€amount€of€$2,500.00.€ÏDefendant€presents€three€issues€for€review€on€appeal:€(1)€whether€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€thatÏplaintiff€was€entitled€to€recover€damages€from€defendant;€(2)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€awarding€plaintiff€attorneyððs€fees;€and€(3)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€allowing€plaintiffððs€first€witness€to€remain€in€courtÏas€its€representative€following€his€testimony.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafterÏstated,€we€reverse€the€action€of€the€court€in€awarding€plaintiff€attorneyÏfees€and€otherwise€affirm.ÌÌà àIn€September€1983,€Richard€Dooley,€individually€and€d/b/a€InterstateÏTheatrical€Lighting€and€Supply€(ð ðInterstateðð),€entered€into€a€written€leaseÏagreement€with€defendant€for€certain€space€in€a€building€located€at€1203ÏChurch€Street€in€Nashville.€€Thereafter,€Interstate€went€into€possession€ofÏthe€leased€premises.€€Subsequently,€Interstate€entered€into€a€writtenÏsublease€for€a€portion€of€these€premises€with€Mark€McNally,€d/b/aÏEntertainment.€€This€sublease€became€effective€on€October€1,€1989.ÌÌà àOn€or€about€November€9,€1990€and€again€on€or€about€December€26,Ï1990,€the€roof€of€defendantððs€building€developed€leaks€during€rainstormsÏthat€permitted€water€to€enter€the€premises€and€damage€EntertainmentððsÏpersonal€property.€€Pursuant€to€a€contract€of€insurance€between€plaintiffÏand€Entertainment,€plaintiff€paid€Entertainment€the€sum€of€$7,152.38€forÏthe€damages€Entertainment€suffered€in€November€1990€and€the€sum€ofÏ$4,656.09€for€Entertainmentððs€damages€in€December€1990.€€Thereafter,Ïplaintiff€brought€this€action€as€subrogee€of€Entertainment€against€theÏdefendant€alleging€negligence€because€(1)€defendant€knew€or€should€haveÏknown€that€the€roof€was€in€bad€repair€and€failed€to€warn€Entertainment,Ïand€(2)€defendant€negligently€repaired€the€roof,€resulting€in€damage€toÏEntertainmentððs€property.Ì€€ÌÓ  ÓI.€€€The€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court.ÌÌÓ  Óà àAlthough€defendant€characterizes€his€first€issue€as€whether€theÏcourt€erred€in€giving€plaintiff€a€judgment€against€him,€which,€as€defendantÏpoints€out,€is€substantially€broad€and€fails€to€comply€with€T.R.A.P.Ï27(a)(4),€to€give€defendant€the€benefit€of€the€doubt€we€have€characterizedÍthis€issue€as€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€Our€scope€of€review€on€appeal€is€de€novo€upon€the€recordÏof€the€trial€court.€€Findings€of€fact€by€the€court€below€come€to€this€courtÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness,€and€unless€we€find€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€these€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€ofÏlaw.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Because€the€trial€court€made€no€findings€of€fact,€thereÏis€nothing€in€this€record€upon€which€the€presumption€of€correctnessÏcontained€in€T.R.A.P.€13(d)€can€attach.€€òòSee€Kelly€v.€Kellyóó,€679€S.W.2d€458,Ï460€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€We€will€therefore€proceed€to€review€the€record€inÏthis€case€de€novo.ÌÌà àWe€state€at€the€outset€that€because€this€is€a€judgment€from€a€non„jury€trial€that€appears€to€hinge€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses€below,€itÏwill€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€there€is€clear,€concrete,€andÏconvincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.ÏPerryóó,€526€S.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€App.€1974).ÌÌà àBefore€considering€the€proof€surrounding€the€defective€roof€and€theÏdamage€caused€by€the€leaks,€we€must€first€deal€with€the€matter€ofÏdefendantððs€knowledge€of€the€sublease€between€Entertainment€andÍInterstate.€€The€original€lease€between€Interstate€and€defendant€containsÏthe€following€language€pertaining€to€the€maintenance€of€the€premises:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àð ðLessee€[Interstate]€agrees€to€keep€the€leased€property€in€goodÏrepair€at€Lesseeððs€cost€accepting€that€Lessor€[Gossett]€shall€beÏresponsible€for€repair€of€the€roof€.€.€.€upon€notice€of€any€defectÏtherein€by€Lessee.ððÌÌÌÌÓÓà àMark€McNally,€president€of€Entertainment,€testified€that€he€was€aÏlong„time€friend€of€Richard€Dooley,€who€owned€and€operated€Interstate,Ïand€that€they€often€worked€on€the€same€type€of€jobs.€€McNally€testifiedÏthat€both€he€and€Dooley€discussed€the€sublease€with€defendant€before€theyÏsigned€it,€and€that€defendant€did€not€express€any€opposition€toÏEntertainment€subleasing€the€premises.€€McNally€stated€that€he€evenÏshowed€defendant€a€copy€of€the€sublease.ÌÌà àMcNally€testified€he€redecorated€and€refurbished€the€subleasedÏpremises€prior€to€moving€in.€€On€or€about€November€9,€1990,€the€ceiling€inÏthe€storage€area€of€the€building€collapsed€during€a€rainstorm€and€waterÏleaked€in,€causing€damages€to€personal€property€in€EntertainmentððsÏpossession.€€McNally€told€defendant€about€the€leak€after€its€occurrence.€ÍMcNally€stated€that€at€the€time€he€subleased€from€Interstate,€he€knewÏthere€had€been€leaks€in€the€roof,€but€not€in€the€parts€of€the€building€thatÏhe€subleased€from€Interstate.€€He€stated€that€that€was€why€he€leased€thisÏparticular€part€of€the€building.ÌÌà àMcNally€said€that€the€second€loss€occurred€on€or€about€December€26Ïof€the€same€year.€€On€that€occasion€water€leaked€all€over€the€office€whereÏthe€ceiling€had€caved€in.€€Computers€in€the€office€were€also€damaged.€ÏMcNally€stated€that€he€had€a€conversation€with€defendant€after€the€firstÏloss,€and€that€the€defendant€assured€him€that€the€roof€would€be€fixed.€ÏMcNally€stated€that€another€reason€that€the€defendant€should€have€realizedÏthat€he€was€subleasing€the€building€was€that€he€did€some€personal€repairÏwork€on€some€electronics€for€defendant.€€McNally€stated€that€the€damageÏhe€sustained€was€substantially€in€excess€of€his€insurance€coverage,€as€heÏonly€had€minimum€coverage,€and€that€he€moved€out€of€the€premises€afterÏthe€second€loss.ÌÌà àRichard€Dooley€testified€that€there€had€been€prior€leaks€over€theÏprevious€eight€years€in€other€places€of€the€building,€and€that€he€hadÏcomplained€to€defendant,€who€would€kid€him€about€buckets€being€on€theÍfloor€to€collect€the€leaking€water.€€Dooley€stated€that€defendant€brought€inÏpeople€to€repair€the€roof,€but€they€never€stopped€the€leaks.€€Dooley€alsoÏcorroborated€McNallyððs€testimony€to€the€effect€that€both€talked€to€theÏdefendant€about€the€sublease€between€Interstate€and€Entertainment.€ÏDooley€also€confirmed€that€Entertainment€hung€a€sign€inside€the€buildingÏindicating€their€presence€there.ÌÌà àDefendant,€called€by€plaintiff€as€a€hostile€witness,€testified€that€heÏthought€McNally€was€an€employee€of€Interstate.€€He€stated€he€did€notÏrecall€seeing€Entertainmentððs€sign€and€did€not€recall€asking€McNally€to€doÏrepair€work€for€him.ÌÌà àWhen€called€to€testify€on€his€own€behalf,€defendant€denied€everÏtalking€to€either€McNally€or€Dooley€about€Interstate€subletting€any€spaceÏto€Entertainment.€€He€further€testified€that€he€never€recalled€seeingÏEntertainmentððs€sign€in€the€building.€€In€describing€the€November€1990Ïleak,€defendant€stated€there€were€a€few€drops€of€water€on€McNallyððs€deskÏand€a€little€on€the€floor.€€According€to€McNallyððs€testimony€and€the€proofÏof€loss€statement€he€filed,€the€November€leak€occurred€back€in€theÏwarehouse€area,€while€the€leak€over€the€office€area€occurred€in€December.€ÍDefendant€further€testified€that€the€December€leak€was€caused€whenÏsomeone€working€on€the€roof€damaged€a€vent€pipe.€€On€cross€examination,Ïdefendant€modified€his€story,€saying€that€the€vent€pipe€problem€cameÏabout€as€a€result€of€old€age.€€Defendant€did€not€know€who€repaired€the€roofÏor€when.ÌÌà àIt€is€also€defendantððs€contention€that€he€is€not€liable€for€any€damageÏcaused€to€Entertainmentððs€property€by€roof€leaks€by€virtue€of€theÏfollowing€clause€that€is€in€the€sublease€between€Interstate€andÏEntertainment.€€This€clause€reads€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€lessor€does€not€warrant€the€condition€of€the€leasedÏpremises€in€any€respect,€and€his€liability€for€any€injury€to€theÏlessee,€his€family,€servants,€agents,€or€those€claiming€underÏhim,€or€those€on€the€premises€by€his€or€her€invitation,€shall€beÏlimited€to€injuries€arising€from€such€defects€only€as€areÏunknown€to€him€or€them€and€€as€are€actually€known€to€theÏlessor€and€wilfully€concealed€by€him.€.€.€.€€The€lessor€shall€notÏbe€required€to€make€any€repairs€during€the€term€of€this€leaseÏherein€specified.ÌÓÓÌÌDefendant€seeks€to€utilize€this€clause€in€the€sublease€for€two€purposes:Ï(1)€to€absolve€him€of€any€duty€to€make€repairs€to€the€roof,€and€(2)€toÍdemonstrate€that€he€did€not€ð ðwillfully€concealðð€any€defects€in€the€roofÏfrom€plaintiff.€€Both€these€contentions€are€without€merit.€€Defendant€wasÏnot€a€party€to€the€sublease€agreement.€€The€recitals€of€the€sublease€referÏto€Interstate€Lighting€as€Lessor€and€Entertainment€as€Lessee.€€DefendantÏis€no€way€mentioned€in€the€sublease€agreement.€€This€contention€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àDefendant€also€contends€that€because€he€repaired€the€roof€on€the€twoÏoccasions€that€the€roof€leaked,€he€is€immune€from€liability.€€ParagraphÏfour€of€the€original€lease€called€for€defendant€to€make€repairs€to€the€roof.€ÏThe€record€reflects€that€the€roof€leaked€prior€to€the€first€collapse€inÏNovember€1990.€€Dooley€testified€that€he€had€numerous€problems€withÏleaks€in€the€building€for€the€previous€eight€years.€€McNally€testified€thatÏhe€cautioned€the€defendant€about€the€roof€leak€problems€in€other€areas€ofÏthe€premises€prior€to€entering€into€his€sublease€with€Dooley.€€At€trialÏdefendant€testified€that€he€had€repaired€the€roof,€but€he€could€not€produceÏany€proof€of€repairs€actually€completed€on€the€roof€that€had€beenÏrequested€prior€to€trial€by€counsel€for€plaintiff.ÌÌà àAlthough€there€are€conflicts€and€discrepancies€in€the€testimony,€theÍtrial€judge€heard€and€observed€the€witnesses€and€their€demeanor.€€TheÏtrial€judge€is€best€qualified€to€resolve€these€conflicts.€€After€reviewingÏthis€entire€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€is€notÏpreponderate€against€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€insofar€asÏdefendantððs€liability€for€the€damages€suffered€by€plaintiff.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€Award€of€Attorneyððs€FeesÌÌÓ  Óà àDefendant€contends€that€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€attorneyððsÏfees€to€plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$2,500.00.€€Plaintiff€contends€thatÏdefendant€acted€in€bad€faith€by€denying€that€he€knew€of€the€subleaseÏagreement€between€Interstate€and€Entertainment,€and€also€by€failing€toÏprovided€any€documentation€of€repairs€allegedly€made€to€the€roof.ÌÌà àAs€a€general€rule,€litigants€must€pay€their€own€attorney€fees.€€SeeÏòòAlyeskaóó€òòPipeline€Service€Co.€v.€Wilderness€Societyóó,€421€U.S.€240,€247Ï(1975).€In€òòFifth€Third€Co.€v.€Mooreland€Estates€Homeowners€Assððnóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€292,€298€(Tenn.€App.€1982),€this€court€stated€the€exceptions€to€thisÏrule€allowed€in€this€state:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€general€rule€in€Tennessee€is€that€attorneys€fees€mayÏnot€be€recovered€unless€provided€for€by€statute€or€by€contactÏbetween€the€parties.€€There€are€exceptions€to€this€rule,€such€asÏwhere€there€are€property€or€funds€before€the€court€which€haveÏbeen€protected€or€preserved€by€a€party,€and€then€his€counselÏfees€may€be€paid€out€of€the€property€or€fund€so€preserved.ÌÌÓÓÌOur€supreme€court€in€òòCorinth€Bank€&€Trust€Co.€v.€Security€Natððl€Bankóó,€252ÏS.W.€1001,€1006€(Tenn.€1923)€stated€that€ordinarily€the€litigant€cannotÏcollect€attorney€fees€ð ðhowever€wrongful€may€have€been€the€suit€orÏhowever€groundless€the€defense.ðð€€In€our€opinion€the€trial€court€was€inÏerror€in€awarding€plaintiffððs€attorneys€fees.€ÌTherefore,€we€reverse€the€trial€court€in€this€regard.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Plaintiffððs€Courtroom€RepresentativeÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€accordance€with€Rule€615€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,Ïplaintiff€designated€Mark€McNally€as€its€representative€to€remain€in€theÏcourtroom€during€trial.€€McNally€was€also€the€first€witness€to€testify€onÏbehalf€of€plaintiff€and€thereafter€proceeded€to€sit€at€counsel€table€asÏplaintiffððs€representative€for€the€duration€of€the€trial.€€DefendantÏcontends€that€he€was€greatly€prejudiced€by€McNallyððs€presence€in€theÍcourtroom€after€he€testified.€€The€allowing€of€witnesses€to€remain€in€theÏcourtroom€following€their€testimony€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòSee€State€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€68€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€113€S.€Ct.€1368€(1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€regardÏwill€not€be€overturned€without€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòStateÏv.€Wicksóó,€729€S.W.2d€283,€286€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€purpose€of€theÏexclusionary€rule€is€to€prevent€testifying€witnesses€from€altering€theirÏtestimony€after€hearing€the€testimony€of€prior€witnesses.€€Neil€P.€Cohen€etÏal.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€615.1,€at€326„27€(2d€ed.€1990).€€This€isÏnot€a€concern,€however,€where€the€witness€has€completed€his€testimony.€ÏWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€andÏthus€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awardingÏthe€plaintiff€attorneyððs€fees€is€reversed.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€in€all€other€€respects€affirmed.€€Costs€on€this€cause€of€appeal€are€taxedÏone„half€to€plaintiff€and€one„half€to€defendant,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.J.à àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.à àà à(CONCURS)