WPCO  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88w@: 0J: 0T; 0^n; 0h; 0@4< D3t< 0r< 0|= 0= 0> 1u> 0d ?U 6?B)?DC? AM&@U*s@@ A^BEv~!FvG AOrMM 0DN D/N BNV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dڃ"$(G.2$ FT!   5XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  HOWELLBERKEFRAYN HANNBEECHERGerwelsBREZEALELoudonApplewhiteHelmiWilkerson R.T. FantN.Y.S.2dTaillieChedesterTenn.Crim.AppBudiselichRigsbyLoftisEdenfiledWoodlawnT]hisFerguson qrDs{ e|IDӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ("$    GGGG'dxd2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  VWXZ_`ab ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dllll7Border 1dd[mC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#k  oo   YYY FILEDoX July25,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.oAppellateCourtClerk  F!#d#k  I$k        ݀Thepartiesstipulatedthatthedefendantmeant contractualobligations. T F!#d#k  I$k         WealsonotethatitiswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourttoadmitevidenceunderRule703thatisnototherwiseadmissible. Ifthebasesofexperttestimonyarenotindependentlyadmissible,thetrialjudgeshouldeitherprohibitthejuryfromhearingthefoundationtestimonyorshoulddeliveracautionaryinstruction.Rule703,TennesseeRulesofEvidence,AdvisoryCommissionComments. F!#d#k  I$k         Itisundisputedthatthejurywasproperlyinstructedastothelaw.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva [C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . k  ݛ  7 NXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  l u` ќRnpmA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONJOHNM.GERWELS@ @ ) KNOXCOUNTY@ ) 03A019610CV00324 PlaintiffAppellant  @ )@ )@ ) v.  @ ) HON.HAROLDWIMBERLY,̀@ ) JUDGE@ ) @ CURTT.PHILLIPS@ )@ ) AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSED DefendantAppellee@ ) INPART;andREMANDEDTHOMASA.BICKERSOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTBEECHERA.BARTLETT,JR.,andADRIENNEL.ANDERSONOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEE@     OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThisisanappealfromajudgmententeredbytheKnoxCountyCircuitCourtinasuitarisingfromtheconstructionofaprivateresidentialhome.JohnM.Gerwels,PlaintiffAppellant,filedsuitallegingthatCurtT.Phillips,DefendantAppellee,wasliablefordefectsintheconstructionofMr.Gerwels'house,forcostoverruns,andforallegeddefamatorystatementsconcerningMr.Gerwels.Mr.Phillipsfiledacountersuitseekingmoniesowedforworkperformed.  TheTrialCourtgrantedtheDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthePlaintiffsdefamationclaim.Thepartiesproceededtotrialontheconstructioncontractclaims.ThejuryreturnedaverdictinfavorofthePlaintiffintheamountof$20,000andinfavoroftheDefendantonhiscounterclaimintheamountof$8000,tobepaidtothesupplierswhofurnishedmaterialsandservicesforconstructionofthehouse.  ThePlaintiffhasraisedfiveissuesonappeal:       I. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINGRANTINGPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTTODEFENDANTONPLAINTIFFSDEFAMATIONCLAIM. II.WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINDENYINGPLAINTIFFSMOTIONFORDIRECTEDVERDICTONPHILLIPSCOUNTERCLAIM.III. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERRONEOUSLYEXCLUDEDTHETESTIMONYOFTOMBREAZEALE.IV. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINDENYINGPLAINTIFFSMOTIONFORANEWTRIAL.V. WHETHERTHECOURTERREDINDENYINGPLAINTIFFSMOTIONFORADIRECTEDVERDICTONHISBREACHOFCONTRACTCLAIM.         Forthereasonsstatedbelow,thedecisionoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart.  I.Facts    ThePlaintiffownedimprovedlakefrontpropertyinLoudonCountywhereheplannedtobuildaweekendhouse.Afterreceivingbidsonthebuildingcontract,thePlaintiffcontractedwiththeDefendanttobuildthehouse.However,aftersubmissionoftheoriginalbid,thePlaintiffdecidedtochangefrombuildingaweekendhousetobuildingapermanentresidence.ThePlaintiffsubmittedthenewdrawingstotheDefendantforarevisedbid.Thefactsareindisputeastowhetherthepartiescontractedtokeepthebuildingcostsbelow$200,000ornot.However,thewrittencontractbetweenthepartiesexpresslyprovided:       Thiscontractisa costofconstructioncontractandtheOwneragreestopaytheContractorfortheworkdescribedinthecontractdocumentsandshallpaythetotalcostofconstruction,whichisapproximately$200,000.00.         Duringconstructionofthehouse,thePlaintiffmadesomechangesintheconstructionplansofthehouse.Forexample,theoriginalplansweretoleavethebasementareaasunfinishedstoragespace.However,thePlaintifflaterauthorizedtheDefendanttoperformadditionalworktofinishthebasement.Eventually,thepartiesbegantodisputethechargesforcostsofconstructionintheinvoicessubmittedbytheDefendanttothePlaintiffforpayment.  Whenthepartieswereunabletoresolvetheirdisputes,thePlaintiffmailedtwoidenticalletters,onetotheKnoxvilleHomeBuildersAssociationandonetotheBetterBusinessBureau.Thelettersstatedthefollowing:       Thisistorequestyourhelpingettingmycontractor,CurtPhillips,whobuiltmyhousetoadequatelycompensatemeforworknotdone,orimproperlydone.Untilthisistakencareof,IaskyoutokeepamopenfileonMr.Phillipssothatotherswillknowofthisunsatisfactorywork.AlsonotethatMr.Phillipsexceededcontractcostsby50%anddidnottellmeuntilJanuary,1991(twoweeksbeforecompletion).       TheBetterBusinessBureaumailedacopyofthePlaintiffslettertotheDefendantrequestingtheDefendanttoreplytothecomplaint.Theletterstatedthat thenatureofthecomplaintandyourresponsewillbekeptconfidential.TheDefendantrespondedtothecomplaintsofthePlaintiffandthenstated:       Mr.Gerwelshasaproventrackrecordonnotlivingtoconstructuralobligations. q   ׀Hehashadhispriorresidenceremodeledandlienswereplacedonthatresidenceatthattime.       ThisstatementprovidesthebasisofthePlaintiffsdefamationclaim.  Soonthereafter,negotiationsbetweenthepartiesbrokedown.ThePlaintiffhaspaidatotalof$293,067.83totheDefendantforconstructionofthehouse.BillssubmittedtotheDefendantbyMorristownDryWallandPlasteringCo.andlandscaperWayneKitts,bothsubcontractorsonthejob,havenotbeenpaid.Theirbillswere$6643and$1486respectively.  II.Defamation    TheTrialCourtgrantedtheDefendantsmotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentfindingthatthecomplainedofandallegedlibelouswordsoftheDefendantweretrueandthattherewasnopublicationoftheallegedlibelouswordsbytheDefendant.ItisaxiomaticinTennesseelawthatpublicationisanessentialelementofalibelactionwithoutwhichacomplaintmustbedismissed.Applewhitev.MemphisStateUniversity,495S.W.2d190(Tenn.1973);Freemanv.DaytonScaleCo.,159Tenn.413,19S.W.2d255(1929);Woodsv.Helmi,758S.W.2d219(Tenn.App.1988). Furthermore,wedonotreachthematterofprivilege,maliceoranyotherquestionuntilthereisapublication."  TheDefendantcontendsthatitwasnotapublicationunderTennesseelawforhimtorespondtothedesignatedagentsofthePlaintiff,theBetterBusinessBureauandtheTennesseeHomeBuildersAssociation.ItisundisputedthatthePlaintiffrequestedtheirhelpingettingtheDefendant toadequatelycompensatemeforworknotdone,orimproperlydone.Asaresult,thePlaintiffdesignatedtheBetterBusinessBureauandtheTennesseeHomeBuildersAssociationashisagentsintheletterstothem.ThisinformationwasinturncommunicatedtotheDefendant,whoreceivedacopyoftheletters.Asaresult,thestatementsmadebytheDefendanttothePlaintiffsdesignatedagentsarenottobeconsideredasstatementscommunicatedorpublicizedtothirdpersons.  ThePlaintiffassertsthattheTrialCourtshouldnothavegrantedsummaryjudgmentbecausetheirisevidencefromwhichthejurycouldfindthatthestatementwasmadewithmalice.However,havingconcludedthattherewasnopublicationandthereforenodefamation,itisimmaterialwhetherthestatementwasmademaliciously.Amaliciousstatementisnotdefamatoryunlessthereispublication.Therefore,theTrialCourtproperlygrantedtheDefendantspartialmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthedefamationclaim.Sinceourdeterminationthattherewasnopublicationoftheallegeddefamatorystatementisdispositiveofthisissue,itisnotnecessaryforustoaddresswhetherthestatementwastrue.  III.DefendantsCounterclaim    ThePlaintiffarguesthattheTrialCourtshouldhavegrantedadirectedverdictontheDefendantscounterclaimtorecoverunpaidsubcontractorsfees.Thejuryreturnedaverdictonthecounterclaiminthesumof$8000tobepaidtothetwocontractors.TheCourtenteredinthefinaljudgmentthattheDefendantrecoverthesumof$8000,tobepaidtoWayneKittsintheamountof$1400andMorristownDryWallandPlasterCompanyintheamountof$6600.  ThePlaintiffarguesthattheDefendantdidnothavestandingtobringtheclaimsofthesubcontractorsbecause Phillipscannotactasaprivateattorneygeneraltoenforceobligationspurportedlyowedtoothers.Attrial,oncrossexamination,theDefendantwasaskedwhyhewasassertingaclaimfortheamountowedtoMorristownDryWallandPlasterCompany.TheDefendantresponded:       Why,sure;hedidntpayhisbill.Imobligatedtopayitifhedoesnt.Itwasworkdoneonhishouse,andIhiredthatgentleman,andIvegottopayhim.       TheDefendantwasthenaskedwhetherthesamethingistruewithMr.Kitts,thelandscaper.TheDefendantreplied:       Yes,sir.Hehiredhim;heaskedmeabouthim;hehiredhim.Ireferredthemantohim.AndIfeelsemiobligatedthatthesepeopleshouldbepaid,youknow,thisisnotthefirstorsecondtimeJohnGerwelsdidntpaysomeoneonthatjob.AndIfeltobligated,yes.         Asubcontractormaynotassertacontractualclaimagainstahomeownerwithwhomthesubcontractorisnotinprivity.SeeR.S.Wilkersonv.R.T.Fant&Co.,4Tenn.App.259(1926);EasternStatesElectricalContractors,Inc.v.WilliamL.CrowConstructionCo.,544N.Y.S.2d600(A.D.1Dept.,N.Y.Sup.Ct.App.Div.1989).Therefore,MorristownDryWallandPlasteringCompanydoesnothavestandingtosueMr.Gerwels.TheDefendantistheonlypartywhocansuethePlaintiffformoniesowed.Asaresult,theDefendanthadstandingtobringthesuittorecovermoniesowedtoMorristownDryWallandPlasteringCompany.Thecounterclaimjudgmentof$6400tobepaidtoMorristownDryWallandPlasteringCompanyisaffirmed.  However,Mr.KittswashiredbythePlaintiffhimselfandnotbythecontractor.Mr.KittshasprivityofcontractwiththePlaintiffandcouldbringsuitonhisownbehalftorecovermoniesowed.Tailliev.Chedester,600S.W.2d.732(Tenn.App.1980).Therefore,theDefendantdoesnothavestandingtosueonbehalfofMr.Kitts.Thecounterclaimjudgmentof$1400tobepaidtoMr.Kittsisreversedanddismissed.  IV.ExpertTestimony    ThePlaintiffclaimsthattheTrialcourterredinnotallowingTomBreazeale,thePlaintiffsinsuranceagentforhishomeownerpolicy,totestifyastothereplacementcostofthehouse.ThePlaintiffsoughttohaveMr.Breazealetestifythatthereplacementcostofthehouseis$196,600.However,inahearingoutsidethepresenceofthejury,Mr.Breazealetestifiedthatthefigurerepresentedthevaluethattheinsurancecompaniesfieldunderwriterplacedonthehouse.AccordingtoMr.Breazeale,fieldunderwritersarespecialistswhomakeinspectionsofbuildingsandthenputavalueonthestructure.  Hearsayisdefinedas astatement,otherthanonemadebythedeclarantwhiletestifyingatthetrialorhearing,offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthematterasserted.Rule801(c)oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.Sincetheopinionofthefiledunderwriterishearsay,itisadmissibleonlyifitfallsintooneofthehearsayexceptions.ThePlaintiffclaimsthatMr.BreazealeisanexpertpursuanttoRule702oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.Asaresult,thefieldunderwriterstestimonyisadmissibleasdatarelieduponbyMr.BreazealeinforminghisopinionastothevalueofthehousepursuanttoRule703oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.  However,thePlaintiffwasrequiredtoestablishMr.BreazealeasanexperttothesatisfactionoftheTrialCourt.ThisCourtreviewsthetrialcourtsdecisionastowhetherapersonisqualifiedasanexpertunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Statev.Anderson,880S.W.2d.720(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).TheTrialCourtfoundthatMr.BreazealewasnotanexpertcompetenttotestifyastothevalueofthePlaintiffshousebecausehewasmerelyrepeatingtheopinionofthefieldwriterastothevalueofthehouseandwasnotprovidinghisexpertopinionastothevalueofthehouse.SincethePlaintiffdidnotadequatelyestablishthatMr.Breazealewasevenqualifiedtogiveanexpertopinionastothevalueofthehouse,wefindnoabuseofdiscretionbytheTrialCourt. r   כ  V.MotionforaNewTrial    ThePlaintiffcontendsthattheTrialCourterredindenyingthePlaintiffsmotionforanewtrialbecausethejurysverdictisinconsistentwiththeevidenceofthePlaintiffsclaimforreimbursementforoverchargesandthatthejurysverdictisinconsistentwiththeevidenceonthePlaintiffsclaimfordamagesfordefectsinconstruction.Theruleofanappellatecourtinreviewingajuryverdictiswelldefinedinthelaw. Findingsoffactbyajuryincivilactionsshallbesetasideonlyifthereisnomaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict.Rule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.ThisCourtsreviewdoesnotincludeweighingtheevidenceordecidingwherethepreponderancelies,butmerelytodeterminewhetherthereismaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict.Budiselichv.Rigsby,639S.W.2d663(Tenn.App.1982).Whenajuryverdictisapprovedbyatrialcourt,theappellatecourtdoesnotweightheevidence,butratherdetermineswhetherthereismaterialevidencetosupportthejurysverdict.Givenv.Low,661S.W.2d.687(Tenn.App.1983);Loftisv.Finch,491S.W.2d.370(Tenn.App.1972).Wefindthatthereismaterialevidencetosupportthejurysverdict.Consequently,thiscontentionofthePlaintiffiswithoutmerit.  VI.MotionforDirectedVerdicto  k  ThePlaintiffcontendsthattheTrialCourterredinnotdirectingaverdictonhisbreachofcontractclaim.InlightofthejuryfindingforthePlaintiffonhisbreachofcontractclaim,wefindthatthePlaintiffspositionismoot.  ThePlaintiffalsoarguesthatthejuryshouldhaveassesseddamagesat$90,000,thecostofreplacingdefectsinthehouse.ThePlaintiffcontendsthatthepropermeasureofdamagesinabreachofaconstructioncontracttobuildahomeorpersonalresidenceisthecostofmakingthestructurecomplywiththespecifications.InEdenfiledv.WoodlawnManor,Inc.,62Tenn.App.280,462S.W.2d237(1970),theCourtheldthatthepropermeasureofdamagesfordefectsintheconstructionofaresidentialbuildingorhomeisthecostofrepairingthebuildingtomakeitmeettheplansorspecifications,ratherthanthedifferenceinvalueofthehomeascontractedorasconstructed. s   ׀Thus,thePlaintiffarguesthatsincetheonlyproofastothecostofreconstructionisthe$90,000figuretestifiedtobyhisexpert,heisentitledtoa$90,000judgment.  ThisCourtisnotwillingtoacceptthePlaintiffsargumentthatexperttestimonyconcerningthemeasureofdamagesisconclusiveuponajury.TheSupremeCourthasstated:       [T]hisopiniontestimonyalthoughnotcontradictedbyanopposingcontraryopinionisnotconclusive.Expertopinions,atleastwhendealingwithhighlycomplicatedandspecificmatters,arenotordinarilyconclusiveinthesensethattheymustbeacceptedastrueonthesubjectoftheirtestimony,butarepurelyadvisoryincharacterandthetrieroffactsmayplacewhateverweightitchoosesuponsuchtestimonyandmayrejectit,ifitfindsthatitisinconsistentwiththefactsinthecaseorotherwiseunreasonable.Eveninthoseinstancesinwhichnoopposingexpertevidenceisoffered,thetrieroffactsisstillboundtodecidetheissueuponitsownfairjudgment,assistedbytheexperttestimony.ActOLaneGasServiceCo.v.Hall,35Tenn.App.500,248S.W.2d398(1951).Inourview,thisisespeciallytruewhentheopinion,asinthiscase,amountstonomorethanpredictionandspeculation.       Gibsonv.Ferguson,562S.W.2d.188,189(Tenn.1976).ThegeneralruleinthisStateisthatexperttestimonyisnotconclusiveunlessitisofsuchatechnicalorscientificnaturethatlaymenmaybesupposedtohaveinsufficientknowledgeuponwhichtobaseacorrectjudgment.Englandv.BurnsStoneCo.Inc.,874S.W.2d32(Tenn.App.1993).Theexpertinthiscasedoesnotfallintothiscategory.Therefore,weaffirmthejurysverdictof$20,000.  VII.Conclusion    Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmtheTrialCourtinallrespectsexceptthatwereversethe$1400judgmenttobepaidtoMr.Kitts.Thecauseisremandedforcollectionofthejudgmentsandcostsbelow.CostsofAppealareadjudgedonehalfagainstthePlaintiffandonehalfagainsttheDefendant.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.