ÿWPCØ 5# öU: %; 0ûA4<P 0?_ 0Dž â èîw@ö 0J6 € † 0† 0@ 0TÝ Æ1 U@÷ e7 AQ8 0D‰ 0^Í 0h+ 0r“ 0| 0† 0 1u— 0d  Bp D3 D/À BïU* B)6DC_ AM¢˜ïv~‡vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñäzz!#3|x÷(ï(3-•$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XäXXXÔÑ7€äXXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÈRÈR îïÊðñÊòÊóôÊõÊöÓ€÷2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔHR(ï3Ô·$¢¢Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XäXXXÔÑ7€äXXdædæ7ÑÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔó óÌò òÔ€.¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€.XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€.ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›ò òœÓ  ÓÔ% € ÔIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„̜ـÙßR€120A1-j|¡þ=- `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌJOAN€DOUGLAS€andà àó óà àà à)Ìò òGERMANTOWN€REALTY,€INC.,à àó ó)Ìd/b/a€ò òCOLDWELL€BANKER,à àà àó ó)Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àó óà à)à àSHELBY€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiffs\Appellantsà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌò òFRANK€TIBBS€andà àà àà àó ó)à àAppeal€No.€œ02A01„9602„CH„00033›Ìò òAFSAMEH€M.€TIBBS,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants\Appelleesà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌTHE€HONORABLE€œFLOYD€PEETE,›€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJAMES€H.€KEEà àà àà àà àà àJ.€MICHAEL€FLETCHERÌó ó780€Ridge€Lake€Boulevard,€Ste.€202à àà à5583€Murray€Avenue,€Suite€100ÌMemphis,€TN€38120à àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38119ÌAttorney€for€Appellantà àà àà àà àAttorney€for€AppelleeÌà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€and€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÌò òIó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€action€to€recover€a€commission€on€the€sale€of€real€estate€was€dismissedÏat€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€case.€€She€appeals€and€presents€for€review€theÏpropriety€of€the€dismissal€of€her€case.Ìà àSubject€real€estate€was€purchased€by€the€defendants€in€1985.€€Four€yearsÏlater€they€listed€the€property€with€the€plaintiff,€a€licensed€agent.€€The€listing€remainedÏeffective€but€unfruitful€until€1991€when€the€owners€selected€another€realty€firmÏ(Mills),€and€listed€the€property€with€it,€which€also€proved€to€be€unfruitful.Ìà àWhen€the€Mills€listing€expired,€the€plaintiff€arranged€a€six„months€lease€of€theÏproperty€with€œWillingham›.€€Upon€the€expiration€of€the€lease€the€owners€again€listedÏthe€property€with€the€plaintiff€for€a€period€beginning€March€26,€1992€and€endingÏSeptember€26,€1992,€at€a€price€of€$335,000.00.€€This€listing€was€extended€to€April€2,Ï1993€at€a€reduced€price€of€$310,000.00.Ìà àDuring€the€listing€period,€in€early€1993,€Gary€Davis€contacted€the€plaintiff€andÏexpressed€an€interest€in€purchasing€subject€property.€€She€verified€DavisððÏemployment€and€credit€history€and€reported€her€findings€to€the€defendants.Ìà àDavis€testified€that€from€the€beginning€he€intended€to€purchase€the€propertyÏbut€delayed€doing€so€until€certain€other€obligations€were€resolved.€€As€a€furtheranceÏof€his€intention€he€negotiated,€through€the€plaintiff,€a€lease€with€option€to€purchaseÏagreement€with€the€defendants€and€made€a€security€deposit€of€$2,200.00€and€anÏearnest€money€payment€of€$10,000.00.€€When€certain€other€obligations€wereÏresolved€he€made€an€application€for€a€loan€at€Union€Planters€Bank€in€early€1994.€ÏThis€loan€was€refused.€€The€defendants€suggested€a€California€lender€might€beÏreceptive€to€a€loan€application,€or€failing€that,€the€local€National€Bank€of€CommerceÏmight€consider€a€loan€to€Davis.Ìà àThe€option€held€by€Davis€expired€March€31,€1994.€Ìà àThe€California€lender€rejected€Davisðð€loan€application€in€April,€1994.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€continued€her€efforts€to€arrange€a€loan€for€Davis,€and€conferredÏwith€the€defendants€on€April€26€and€May€3,€1994€about€processing€the€applicationÏwith€the€National€Bank€of€Commerce.€€In€the€meantime€the€Davisðð€continued€toÏreside€in€the€house.€€The€plaintiff€assumed€that€the€option€had€been€extended,€andÏthe€defendants€at€no€time€informed€her€to€cease€her€agency€activities.Ìà àIn€August,€1994,€the€plaintiff€was€informed€by€Davis€to€prepare€a€new€contractÏfor€National€Bank€of€Commerce,€and€contacted€the€defendants,€who€told€her€thatÏð ðthe€deal€was€off,€there€was€no€deal,€that€I€was€not€involved.ððÌà àDavis€testified€that€shortly€after€he€made€application€to€the€California€lenderÏhe€talked€with€the€defendants€about€his€continuing€residency€in€the€house,€and€thatÏhe€and€the€defendants€orally€agreed€to€extend€the€option€for€six€months.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€defendants€said€nothing€about€the€plaintiff€being€no€longerÏinvolved,€and€he€continued€to€discuss€his€loan€application€at€National€Bank€ofÏCommerce€with€her€throughout€the€summer€of€1994.€€The€oral€extension€wasÏconfirmed€by€letter€dated€July€1,€1994€from€the€defendants€to€Davis.Ìà àThe€defendants€sold€the€property€to€Davis€on€October€3,€1994€forÏ$305,000.00.€€Credit€for€the€security€deposit€of€$2,200.00€and€the€earnest€moneyÏpayment€of€$10,000.00€was€given€to€Davis€by€the€defendants.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€sought€to€recover€a€sales€commission€on€two€theories:€(1)€afterÏDavisðð€option€to€purchase€expired,€the€plaintiff,€with€the€defendantsðð€approval,Ïcontinued€her€efforts€to€assist€Davis€in€procuring€a€loan€to€purchase€the€propertyÏwhich€constituted€an€implied€renewal€of€the€defendantsðð€agreement€to€pay€her€aÏcommission,€and€(2)€òòquantum€meruit.óó€€An€additional€ground€for€recovery,Ïconstructive€fraud,€is€asserted€for€the€first€œtime,›€œon›€œappeal,›€which€we€cannotÏconsider.€€Ìà àThe€Chancellor€dismissed€the€plaintiffððs€case,€upon€motion,€because€(1)€theÏplaintiff€admitted€ð ðthere€was€no€contract€in€existence€at€that€time,ðð€(2)€the€plaintiffÏadmitted€that€as€of€April€2,€œ1994›€she€had€no€willing€buyer,€and€that€the€defendantsÏð ðcould€have€told€her€the€deal€was€off,ðð€(3)€there€was€insufficient€proof€that€the€listingÏagreement€was€extended.Ìà àTo€put€the€undisputed€facts€in€perspective,€we€reiterate€that€the€originalÏoption€held€by€Davis€expired€March€31,€1994,€and€that€it€was€extended€for€sixÏmonths,€culminating€in€its€exercise€and€the€subsequent€sale€of€the€property€to€theÏdefendants€on€October€3,€1994.€€So€far€as€the€record€reveals€there€is€little€doubt€thatÏthe€sale€was€facilitated€by€the€efforts€of€the€plaintiff.Ìò òÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àó óIn€a€bench€Ô% € Ôtrial€a€motion€to€dismiss€should€be€denied€if€the€plaintiff€hasÏestablished€a€òòprima€facieóó€case.€€òòCity€of€Columbia€v.€œC.F.W.›€Const.€Co.,óó€557€S.W.2dÏ740€(Tenn.€1977).€€Our€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòdeÏnovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€ÏòòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóó€œ50„6„225(3)(2),›€òòStone€v.€City€of€œMcMinnville›,€óó896€S.W.2d€584Ï(Tenn.€1991),€but€no€presumption€attaches€to€legal€conclusions€or€when€theÏconclusions€are€based€on€undisputed€facts.€€òòNational€Bank€of€N.C.€v.€œThrailkill›,óó€856ÏS.W.2d€150€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ìà àThe€plaintiff€argues€that€the€transaction€was€ultimately€closed€pursuant€to€theÏexercise€of€an€extension€of€the€option€by€Davis€granted€after€the€expiration€of€theÏlisting€period€and€the€original€option€period,€which€justifies€the€litigantððs€conclusionÏthat€the€defendants€impliedly€renewed€the€agreement€to€pay€the€plaintiff€aÏcommission€in€the€event€Davis€purchased€the€property.Ìà àIn€òòPyles€v.€Cole,€óó241€S.W.2d€841€(Tenn.€App.€1951),€the€broker,€with€theÏknowledge€of€the€owners,€continued€to€show€the€property€after€his€listing€expired.€ÏThe€defendants€sold€their€property€to€one€Crockett,€to€whom€the€property€had€beenÍshown€by€the€broker.€€The€case€for€a€commission€was€resisted€on€the€grounds€thatÏthe€listing€contract€had€expired,€and€that€the€sale€was€not€the€product€of€the€brokerððsÏefforts.€€This€Court€held,€òòinter€alia,óó€that€ð ð€.€.€.€a€contract€will€be€deemed€renewed€.€.€.Ïwhere€the€principal€has€recognized€that€the€broker€is€continuing€negotiationsÏlooking€to€a€sale€.€.€.€œð ð€€›€It€is€well€settled€in€this€State€œthat€if›€the€brokerððs€efforts€wereÏthe€procuring€cause€of€the€sale,€he€is€entitled€to€his€commission.€€See€òòRobinson€v.ÏœKemmons›€Wilson€Realty€Co.,€óó293€S.W.2d€574€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1956);€òòPacesetterÏProperties€Inc.€v.€œHardaway›,óó€635€S.W.2d€382€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€As€held€inÏòòPacesetter,€supra,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àóóIf€the€agent€is€the€procuring€cause€of€the€transaction,€heÏis€due€a€fee;€if€he€is€not€the€procuring€cause,€he€is€notÏentitled€to€a€fee.€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€evidence€thus€far€presented€indicates€that€the€plaintiff€did€much€moreÏthan€merely€introduce€Davis€to€the€owners.€€She€procured€Davis€and€assisted€in€hisÏleasing€the€property€with€the€eventual€purpose€of€purchasing€it.€€Davis,€so€far€as€theÏproof€shows,€intended€from€the€beginning€of€his€occupancy€to€purchase€theÏproperty,€but€was€hindered€by€financing€obstacles,€later€overcome.€€We€think€thatÏunder€all€œof›€œthe›€circumstances€presented,€the€plaintiff€at€the€least€established€aÏòòprima€facieóó€case€for€relief.€€Ìà àThe€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial,€with€costsÏassessed€to€the€appellees.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌAlan€E.€œHighers›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHolly€œLillard›,€JudgeÌÇÑ7€I:XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ  Óà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌó óÌò òJOAN€DOUGLAS€andà àó óà àà à)Ìò òGERMANTOWN€REALTY,€INC.,à àà àó ó)Ìd/b/a€ò òCOLDWELL€BANKER,à àà àó ó)Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àó óà à)à àSHELBY€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiffs\Appellantsà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌò òFRANK€TIBBS€andà àà àà àó ó)à àAppeal€No.€œ02A01„9602„CH„0Ô% € Ô0033›Ìò òAFSAMEH€M.€TIBBS,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants\Appelleesà àà à)ÌÌÌÓÓ________________________________________________________________Ìà@ àò òJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€TÌó ó________________________________________________________________ÌÌà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€regularly€heard€and€considered€by€this€Court,€andÏfor€the€reasons€stated€in€the€Opinion€of€this€Court,€of€even€date,€it€is€Ordered:Ìà àÌà à1.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€aÏnew€trial.Ìà à2.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellee€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àÌà àENTER:ÌÓÓà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÓÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAlan€E.€œHighers›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìœ›à àà àà àà àà àà àHolly€œLillard›,€Judge