ÿWPCj ¾—Ô ª˜þ R^_7¦ÈYŽ8âÌÖCçß;úãŒqpÔ\†{àáIFÏå¥ð 8®µÒ<ε‰`}iÎñÈêp‰R‚UUGö¡BÌ BKßRN"#6Í[³Œ:HQMùCˆtQYŽ¡w‚|‘¦«=–Ô‚[éY«x¬ˆHËt„¼í½™O8ãyæš;ÍXäïy*R¸˜$ÂüKјÚ{Á©zÖ;½º!  qWY´UÔ»¾D WÜ`ÃwÙ5€>»zɯ|•-„WÀG-xK ’ NÁ§ÿ¢2 ¥/ïÍn9¢–cˆãBp áÙá.CÏÆ( ýLgH~6ï§ût"vf»s£¡[äz©FZÇÊÅyê£{ ªÑùd”3vyÛžüæâÞôy)öcÄs:ôp§ã'ª9X…’è—†wñ·¦:$=Üo‡[¦żvdžñK݈£±ùÝ5Ó×ïêT>¸Noð™Ë¼Žš5ìug’¨ÿ§ü¹sZ¥,ó· )šG¨ð„ût“4ú³ŒÏåå^é'—ôsñ/¥kâ:êüøúýÁãbß_N-‡œK;Æ[G㞕ّå[RÙ‹ÖûÆ3@€_ËY•'ñ·u]ˆ_Eïè2ëÒ©ÄJ~¯Ûo}øQÖ¦…# F U NQ %Ÿ 0(¥ w@Í 4 ! U N0 ¨~ & 0l. 0Dš ›Þ "yU:›"ÕU:÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ D31 Bdd 0D AOÅÆ 0DÚ D/ BM˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ HIJK[L[M[N[OQÓ€]¢RC&zþ<°(#3|x_'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular žÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Act€provides:Ð ° ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àà ` àIf€the€court€finds€that€the€use€or€employment€of€the€unfair€or€deceptive€act€orÏpractice€was€a€willful€or€knowing€violation€of€this€part,€the€court€may€award€three€(3)Ïtimes€the€actual€damages€sustained€.€.€.€.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€109(3)€(1995).((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ‘Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Act€provides:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€the€court€finds€that€the€use€or€employment€of€the€unfair€or€deceptive€actÏor€practice€was€a€willful€or€knowing€violation€of€this€part,€the€court€may€awardÏthree€(3)€times€the€actual€damages€sustained.€.€.€.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€109(3)€(1995). Ô€XUXXXÔÔ€î~ùîXXUÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ÀÔîî~ùÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€24,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÈ ôÀÔÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€XUXXXÔÔ€î~ùîXXUÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ÀÔîî~ùÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€23,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÈ ôÀÔÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular++++'ÿÿdxd d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñQñ›ñQñÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ‡X[JXXXÔò òÑ7€ŒàXXdðXXdð7Ññ]ññQñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E± tt0"H°¨ÓrßñQññ]ññ]ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E± tt0"H°¨Órßñ]ññQñ›ñQñà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òà@åå$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌóóÌTHOMAS€M.€GAGE€and€wife,€€à h à€€€à À à)Ð L œ ÐJUDY€A.€GAGE,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð 8 ˆ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ $ t Ðà  àPlaintiffs/Appellants,€€€€€€€€€€ò òà h àà À à)à  àó óUnion€Chancery€No.€2323Ð  ` Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ  P  Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð ì <  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Ø(  ÐROBERT€C.€SEAMAN€and€wife,à h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€03A01„9711„CH„00503ò òÐ Ä  ÐRUBY€M.€SEAMAN,€et€al.,à  àà h àà À à)Ð ´  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendants/Appellees.ò òà h àà À à)Ð ŒÜ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àÌÌà@ÆÆìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€UNION€COUNTY€€€ˆÐ @ Ðà@› › ìàAT€MAYNARDVILLE,€TENNESSEE€€ˆÌÌÌà@‡ ‡ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€BILLY€JOE€WHITE,€CHANCELLORˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó€òòà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó€òòÐ  ð ÐRobert€andÔ#†XŒàXXX[J†#ÔÔ‡X[JXXXŒàÔ€Ruby€Seamanóó:€à  àà h àà À àòòKnoxville€Realtors,€Inc.€d/b/a€Knoxville€Realtyóó:Ð ŒÜ ÐÌD.€Scott€Hurleyà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBill€W.€PettyÐ d ´ ÐKnoxville,€Tennesseeà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àKnoxville,€TennesseeÐ P!  ÐÌòòFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:Ð (#x! ÐÌStephen€J.€LuskÌKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSEDó ó€ò òÐ ˆ*Ø%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àIN€PART,€Ô#†XŒàXXX[J #ÔÔ‡X[JXXXŒàÔAND€REMANDEDÔ#†XŒàXXX[J$ #ÔÔ‡X[JXXXŒàÔÐ x+È&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð <.Œ)- ÐÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð Ä3/3 ÐÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÔ#†XŒàXXX[Jr #ÔÔ‡X[JXXXŒàÔÐ  t7Ä27 ÐØØÓÓÑ7€ŒàXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àThis€is€an€action€for€breach€of€contract€and€fraudulent€misrepresentation€arising€out€of€theÏsale€of€a€house.€€The€purchasers€filed€suit€against€the€sellers€and€the€real€estate€company,€seekingÏcompensatory€damages.€€€After€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€entered€a€$12,000€judgment€against€theÏdefendant€sellers,€and€ordered€them€to€pay€$8000€of€the€plaintiffsðð€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€claimsÏagainst€the€real€estate€company€were€dismissed.€€Plaintiffs€appealed.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€inÏœpart,›€and€œremand.›Ìà  àIn€1983,€Robert€and€Ruby€Seaman€(ð ðthe€Seamansðð)Ô#†XŒàXXX[JU#Ô€hired€a€contractor€to€construct€a€homeÐ ˜è  Ðon€property€they€owned.€€The€Seamans€decided€to€sell€the€home€in€1991,€and€they€enlisted€the€helpÏof€real€estate€agent€Linda€Bell€(ð ðBellðð),€an€employee€of€Knoxville€Realty.€€The€plaintiffs,€ThomasÏand€Judy€Gage€(ð ðthe€Gagesðð),€noticed€the€home€in€an€advertisement€and€contacted€agent€Bell€aboutÏthe€property.€€After€visiting€the€property,€the€Gages€decided€to€purchase€the€home.€€The€purchaseÏclosed€on€March€17,€1992,€and€the€œGages›€moved€into€the€home€on€œMemorial€Day€weekend›€1992.€ÏThe€Gages€did€not€have€the€home€inspected€prior€to€the€purchase.€€€€Ìà  àApproximately€twenty€days€after€the€Gages€moved€in,€they€noticed€that€sewage€was€backingÏup€inside€the€house.€€A€plumber€remedied€the€situation.€€œApproximately€six›€months€later,€the€GagesÏnoticed€raw€sewage€seeping€out€from€under€rocks€in€the€back€yard.€€They€contacted€the€UnionÏCounty€Health€Department.€€The€Tennessee€œDepartment›€of€œEnvironment€and›€Conservation€visitedÏthe€premises€on€January€25,€1993,€and€determined€that€there€was€no€drain€field€to€the€sewer€systemÏand€that€the€home€was€not€œfit€to€be€used€as€residential€property.›€€The€Gages€applied€for€a€new€septicÏsystem€permit,€but€the€state€denied€the€permit.€€Eventually,€the€home€was€declared€uninhabitable,Ïand€the€Gages€were€forced€to€vacate€the€premises€by€order€of€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEnvironment€and€Conservation.€€Ìà  àThe€Gages€then€filed€this€suit€against€the€Seamans,€Knoxville€Realty,€Jack€Teague,€theÏappraiser,€Title€Professionals,€and€Curtis€Mortgage€Company.€€All€parties€œexcept›€the€Seamans€andÏKnoxville€Realty€were€dismissed€prior€to€trial.€€The€claims€against€the€Seamans€and€KnoxvilleÏRealty€alleged€breach€of€contract€and€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€The€Gages€assert€that€KnoxvilleÏRealty€is€vicariously€liable€because€of€and€through€the€acts€of€its€employee,€Linda€Bell.Ìà  àBell€testified€at€trial€that€the€Seamans,€an€older€couple,€told€her€that€there€were€no€problemsÏwith€the€house€and€that€they€were€selling€the€house€because€of€personal€health€reasons.€€Bell€notedÐ ø:H6: Ðthat€the€Seamans€signed€a€Realty€Disclosure€œStatement,›€œwhich€listed›€no€defects€or€problems€thatÏwould€affect€the€value€of€the€property.€€Bell€testified€that€the€property€was€in€immaculate€conditionÏand€that€she€smelled€no€odors€in€or€around€the€home.€€She€stated€that€she€had€no€reason€to€know€thatÏthere€were€any€problems€with€the€septic€system,€and€that€all€known€problems€were€disclosed€to€theÏGages.€€She€denied€telling€the€Gages€that€there€would€be€an€inspection€by€the€VeteranððsÏAdministration€or€that€she€would€ð ðtake€care€of€themðð€during€the€closing€procedures.€€She€stated€thatÏno€one€had€her€get€information€from€the€Health€Department€on€the€septic€system.€€€Bell€asserted€that,Ïin€the€absence€of€such€a€request,€it€is€not€standard€procedure€for€a€real€estate€agent€to€obtainÏinformation€from€the€Health€Department.€€Ìà  àMrs.€Seaman€testified€at€trial€that€she€was€not€aware€of€any€problems€putting€in€the€septicÏtank,€nor€was€she€aware€of€any€problems€with€the€commodes€backing€up.€€She€acknowledged€oneÏoccasion€on€which€the€roof€leaked.€€She€stated€that€she€never€smelled€sewage€either€inside€or€outsideÏof€the€home.€€She€admitted€that€she€and€her€husband€had€filed€a€lawsuit€against€the€builder€forÏunfinished€work,€faulty€deck€construction,€and€for€installing€a€septic€tank€that€was€smaller€than€theirÏspecifications,€among€other€claims.€€The€suit€was€settled€out€of€court.€€In€addition,€Mrs.€SeamanÏtestified€that€Mr.€Seaman€filed€a€Better€Business€Complaint€against€the€builder€because€he€installedÏthe€wrong€size€septic€œtank.€€Mr.€Seaman€did€not€testify,€apparently€due€to€his€health.ñFñ€€ñFñò òñFñ[CONFIRM€THIS]ñFñó 󛀀Ð °"  Ðà  àAt€trial,€the€builder€testified€that,€during€construction,€a€representative€from€the€UnionÏCounty€Health€Department€came€to€the€lot€and€indicated€that€a€septic€system€could€not€be€approvedÏfor€the€site€and€that€if€a€residence€were€built€on€the€lot,€the€septic€tank€would€need€to€be€attached€toÏthe€adjoining€lotððs€septic€tank,€which€was€also€owned€by€the€Seamans.€€As€a€result,€a€septic€tankÏpermit€was€never€obtained.€€The€builder€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€Mr.€Seaman€was€presentÏwhen€the€Health€Department€representative€came€to€the€property,€but€that€he€later€discussed€theÏsituation€with€Mr.€Seaman.€€He€asserted€that€the€decision€not€to€hook€up€the€septic€system€to€theÏadjoining€lotððs€septic€tank€was€jointly€made€by€himself€and€Mr.€Seaman.€€On€cross€examination,€theÏbuilder€could€not€recall€Mr.€Seaman€explicitly€instructing€him€not€to€join€the€septic€tank€with€theÏtank€next€door,€but€insisted€that€the€decision€not€to€was€a€joint€decision.€€The€builder€also€testifiedÏthat€three€contractors€came€to€inspect€the€lot€for€purposes€of€installing€the€septic€tank.€€Two€of€themÏindicated€that€they€could€not€put€in€the€œseptic€tank,›€suggesting€that€the€Seamans€either€connect€theÐ 09€48 Ðtank€to€the€adjoining€lotððs€tank€or€sell€the€lot€due€to€the€difficulty€of€installing€œa€septic›€tank€in€theÏrocky€terrain.€€€€€€€€Ìà  àConflicting€expert€testimony€was€presented€at€trial€as€to€whether€Bell€should€have€realizedÏthat€the€home€had€a€defective€septic€tank€system.€€James€A.€Worthington,€a€Certified€ResidentialÏAppraiser€and€real€estate€broker€who€testified€for€the€Gages,€stated€that€the€rocky€terrain€on€whichÏthe€house€was€situated€should€have€alerted€a€real€estate€agent€to€the€possibility€that€a€septic€systemÏcould€not€be€properly€installed.€€However,€Knoxville€Realty€proffered€the€testimony€of€BarneyÏThompson,€Executive€Vice€President€of€the€Knoxville€Association€of€Realtors,€who€testified€as€toÏthe€standard€of€care€for€realtors€in€the€Union€County€area€community.€€He€stated€that€a€real€estateÏagent€has€no€duty€to€investigate€beyond€obtaining€a€statement€by€the€sellers€that€there€are€noÏproblems€with€the€house.€€He€indicated,€however,€€that€if€the€agent€is€aware€of€a€problem,€he€or€sheÏmust€confront€the€seller€about€it.€€Mr.€Thompson€stated€that€if€he€viewed€a€house€having€a€steep,Ïrocky€backyard€such€as€the€yard€of€the€Seamansðð€former€residence,€and€surrounded€by€homes€builtÏon€similar€terrain,€he€would€take€the€sellerððs€word€that€they€had€a€septic€tank€and€had€experiencedÏno€problems.Ìà  àAt€trial,€Mrs.€Gage€testified€on€the€issue€of€the€Gagesðð€damages,€utilizing€an€itemized€list€ofÏexpenses.€€Overall,€the€Gages€spent€$8143.98€on€repairs€and€improvements.€€Mrs.€Gage€testified€thatÏthey€spent€$1528€on€furniture€storage€and€for€the€apartment€that€they€moved€into€after€being€forcedÏto€vacate€the€residence.€€This€included€$350€for€ð ð[h]igher€utility€bills€due€to€single€pane€andÏextensive€amount€of€windows€and€cable€hook€up.ðð€€Mrs.€Gage€stated€that€they€spent€$605€on€theÏhouse€they€œleased›€after€they€moved€from€the€apartment,€including€money€used€for€additional€fans,Ïfencing€the€backyard,€curtains,€blinds,€paint,€and€cable€hook€up.€€Mrs.€Gage€included€$400€for€aÏrefrigerator€they€gave€away€since€the€residence€came€with€one,€as€well€as€$1800€for€money€they€gaveÏto€their€son€when€he€moved€out€of€the€apartment€they€rented.€€The€Gages€claimed€$5894.50€inÏmoving€expenses,€including€$150€for€trips€to€the€Veterans€Administration€to€negotiate€closingÏdocuments,€$3354.50€in€closing€costs,€$270€for€a€moving€van,€$120€for€phone€and€utility€hookup,Ïand€$2000€in€rental€payments€the€Gages€made€at€their€prior€home€for€the€two€months€the€SeamansÏoccupied€the€residence€prior€to€closing.€€The€Gages€asserted€that€their€credit€had€been€damaged€byÏthe€foreclosure€but€placed€no€monetary€value€on€the€damage€to€their€credit.€€Their€homeownerððsÐ 09€48 Ðinsurance€policy€reimbursed€them€$1800.€€Taking€this€into€account,€the€total€damages€forÏimprovements,€repairs,€moving€expenses,€closing€costs,€and€miscellaneous€expenses€the€GagesÏsought€were€$16,571.48.€€In€addition,€the€Gages€requested€damages€of€$4190.41€for€their€equityÏinterest€in€the€residence€based€on€an€amortization€schedule€provided€at€trial€considering€fourteenÏpayments.ò ò€€ó óAt€trial,€œMrs.›€œGage›€œstated›€œthat€by€the€time€of€trial€they€had€paid€$13,000€in›€attorneyððsÐ 0 € Мfees.›€€Ìà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Seamans,€in€building€the€house,€knew€that€the€septic€system€wasÏillegally€installed€and€failed€to€disclose€that€fact:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBut€the€fault€simply€lays€with€the€Seamans.€€This€system€was€put€in.€ÏThey€put€it€in€with€knowledge€there€was€no€Health€DepartmentÏcertificate€for€it,€that€it€was€an€illegal€system,€and€that€they€couldÏnever€get€a€permit€to€repair€it.€€And€it€was€covered€up€and€it€was€notÏdivulged€in€this€Disclosure€Statement.€Gentlemen,€thatððs€simplyÏfraudulent€misrepresentation.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓThe€trial€court€awarded€damages€of€$12,000€against€the€Seamans,€without€detailing€how€this€figureÏwas€calculated.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€Gages€had€presented€no€proof€that€Knoxville€Realty,Ïthrough€its€agent€Linda€Bell,€had€knowledge€of€the€problem€with€the€septic€system€at€the€time€of€theÏsale,€and€dismissed€the€Gagesðð€claims€against€it.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€Seamans€toÏpay€the€Gages€$8000€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€Ìà  àIn€response,€both€parties€filed€post„trial€motions.€€The€Seamans€filed€a€motion€to€reconsiderÏor€alter€and€amend€judgment.€€Their€motion€claimed€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€relied€on€theÏtestimony€of€the€Gagesðð€expert€in€finding€that€the€Seamans€knew€of€problems€with€the€septic€tank.€ÏThey€also€contested€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€Gages€filed€a€motion€to€reconsider€or€rehear.€ÏIn€the€Gagesðð€motion,€they€contended€that€the€$12,000€award€did€not€adequately€compensate€them,Ïand€requested€that€the€trial€court€increase€the€award.€€The€trial€court€overruled€both€motions€toÏreconsider.€€The€Gages€then€appealed€to€this€Court.€Ìà  àOn€appeal,€the€Gages€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€their€claim€againstÏKnoxville€Realty.€€The€Gages€also€assert€that€the€damages€awarded€did€not€adequately€compensateÏthem€and€sought€additional€damages€or,€in€the€alternative,€an€itemized€explanation€of€the€$12,000Ïdamages€award.€€The€Gages€contend€further€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€declining€to€award€punitiveÏdamages€or,€in€the€alternative,€treble€damages€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€€€Ìà  àBecause€this€case€was€heard€in€a€bench€trial,€we€review€the€trial€courtððs€decision€òòde€novoóó,Ð  :p59 Ðwith€a€presumption€of€correctness€in€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€No€presumption€of€correctnessÏattaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€œòòò òSeeó óóó›€òòò òCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ð à М1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).›€€Ìà  àOn€appeal,€the€Gages€first€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€claim€againstÏDefendant€Knoxville€œRealty.›€€The€Gages€argue€that€Linda€Bell,€the€employee€and€agent€of€KnoxvilleÏRealtors,€knew€or€should€have€known€about€the€septic€problems€on€the€property€because€the€physicalÏcondition€of€the€land€should€have€alerted€her€to€that€potential€œproblem.€€ñFñò òó óñFñThey›€maintain€that€Bell€actedÏas€an€€intermediary€between€the€sellers€and€the€buyers,€that€they€relied€upon€her€as€a€€realtor,€and€thatÏconsequently€she€was€under€an€affirmative€duty€to€make€the€buyers€aware€of€all€potential€problemsÏwith€the€œproperty.ñFñò òó óñFñ›Ìò òòòà  àó óóóIn€response,€Knoxville€Realty€notes€œthe›€Disclosure€Statement€signed€by€the€Seamans€at€theÐ pÀ Ðtime€the€property€was€listed€by€œKnoxville›€œRealty.€€ñFñ›››ñFñThe›€Disclosure€Statement€declared€that€there€wereÏno€defects€in€the€property€which€would€materially€affect€the€value€or€desirability€of€the€property.€ÏKnoxville€Realty€maintains€that€a€realtor€may€rely€on€the€representations€of€the€seller€whenÏevaluating€the€condition€of€a€potential€real€estate€œlisting.€€The›€Gages€submitted€no€proof€that€BellÏhad€actual€knowledge€of€a€problem€at€the€time€of€the€sale,€and€Knoxville€Realty€argues€that€theÏSeamansðð€knowledge€about€the€problem€cannot€be€imputed€to€Bell.€Ìà  àThe€trial€court€noted€that€the€Gages€presented€no€proof€that€Knoxville€Realty,€œor€its€agent›ÏBell,€had€actual€knowledge€of€any€defect€relating€to€the€property.€€It€found€that€neither€KnoxvilleÏRealty€nor€Linda€Bell,€in€her€capacity€as€sales€agent,€breached€a€duty€or€responsibility€to€the€Gages,Ïand€dismissed€the€Gagesðð€claims€against€Knoxville€Realty.Ìà  àIt€is€undisputed€œthat€Tennessee›€requires€real€estate€agents€and€brokers€to€disclose€known€factsÏabout€the€property€that€could€materially€affect€the€sale€of€the€œproperty.€€ò òòòSee›€Wyner€v.€AthensÐ ð-@), ÐUtilities€Bd.ó óóó,€821€S.W.2d€597,€598„99€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(ð ðA€fiduciary€relationship€aside,€a€realtorÐ Ð/ +. Ðhas€a€duty€to€deal€honestly€with€both€buyer€and€seller.ðð);€òòò òHughey€v.€Rainwater€Partnersó óóó,€661Ð °1-0 ÐS.W.2d€690,€691€(Tenn.€App.€1983)€(ð ðWhere€a€broker€acts€as€an€intermediary€between€a€seller€andÏa€purchaser,€the€broker€is€under€a€duty€to€deal€fairly€and€honestly€with€both€parties.ðð);€òòò òsee€alsoó óóó€Tenn.Ð p5À04 ÐCode€Ann.€œððð𛀜62„13„402€to€ñGñ„ñGñ403›€(1997)€(effective€Jan.€1,€1996).€€€Linda€Bell€signed€an€agencyÏdisclosure€statement€that€placed€on€her€a€duty€ð ðto€disclose€all€facts€known€to€the€agent€materiallyÐ 09€48 Ðaffecting€the€value€or€desirability€of€property€that€are€not€known€to,€or€within€the€diligent€attentionÏand€observation€of,€the€parties.ðð€€Without€question,€Bell€had€a€duty€to€disclose€to€the€Gages€knownÏmaterial€defects€in€the€property.€€Ìà  àHowever,€the€Gages€presented€no€proof€that€Bell€had€actual€knowledge€of€the€problems€withÏthe€septic€system.€€€When€the€Seamans€listed€their€property€with€Knoxville€Realty,€they€signed€theÏDisclosure€Statement,€asserting€that€there€were€no€defects€in€the€property€which€would€materiallyÏaffect€the€value€or€desirability€of€the€property.€€Bell€testified€that€she€took€the€Seamans€at€their€word,Ïand€did€no€further€investigation€of€potential€problems€with€the€property.€€Therefore,€the€proof€isÏundisputed€that€Bell€had€no€actual€knowledge€of€the€problem.€€Ìà  àThe€Gages€argue,€however,€that€Bell€should€have€anticipated€septic€system€problems€due€toÏthe€hilly€nature€of€the€lot€and€the€rocky€outcroppings€present€behind€the€home.€€In€effect,€they€argueÏthat€Bell€had€constructive€knowledge€of€the€problems€with€the€septic€system.€€Both€parties€presentedÏexpert€testimony€on€whether€Bell,€from€seeing€the€premises,€should€have€known€of€a€problem€withÏthe€septic€system.€€The€trial€court€found€that€a€reasonable€real€estate€agent€would€not€necessarilyÏhave€known€from€looking€at€the€property€that€the€site€was€not€suitable€for€a€septic€system.€€NotingÏthat€there€was€no€proof€that€Bell€had€actual€knowledge,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€claims€againstÏKnoxville€Realty.Ìà  àWithout€reaching€the€issue€of€whether€Knoxville€Realty€could€be€liable€based€on€what€BellÏshould€have€known€from€seeing€the€property,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€factual€finding€that€a€reasonable€real€estate€agent€would€not€have€known€ofÏa€problem€simply€from€seeing€the€site.€€Since€it€is€undisputed€that€Bell€had€no€actual€knowledge€ofÏthe€problem,€the€trial€court€appropriately€dismissed€the€claims€against€Knoxville€Realty.€€The€trialÏcourt€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€Seamans€had€actual€knowledge€of€the€defective€nature€of€theÏseptic€system€at€the€time€the€property€was€sold€to€the€Gages,€and€that€they€nevertheless€signed€aÏdisclosure€statement€asserting€that€the€house€was€free€from€defects.€€œð ðñHñ€ñHñððAs›€a€general€rule,€a€party€mayÏbe€held€liable€for€damages€caused€by€his€failure€to€disclose€material€facts€to€the€same€extent€that€aÏparty€may€be€liable€for€damages€caused€by€fraudulent€or€negligent€œmisrepresentation.ðð€ðð›€òòò òGray€v.Ð P7 26 ÐBoyle€Inv.€Co.ó óóó,€803€S.W.2d€678,€683€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€œ(quoting›€òòò òMacon€County€œLivestock€Market,Ð 09€48 ÐInc.›€v.€Kentucky€State€œBank,€Inc.ó óóó,›€724€S.W.2d€œ343,€349›€œ(Tenn.€App.€1986)).›€Ð ° Ðà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€the€Gages€a€total€of€$12,000€in€compensatory€damages€and€$8,000Ïin€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€order€did€not€indicate€how€the€trial€court€arrived€at€these€amounts.€€OnÏappeal,€the€Gages€argue€that€the€damage€award€is€not€in€accord€with€the€proof€in€the€record,€and€Ïrequest€that€this€Court€remand€the€case€for€a€reassessment€of€damages€or€for€an€itemization€of€theÏ$12,000€award.€€The€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€was€not€appealed.Ìà  àIn€response,€the€Seamans€argue€that€the€Gages€failed€to€meet€their€burden€of€provingÏdamages€with€a€reasonable€degree€of€certainty.€€They€contend€that€some€of€the€requested€damagesÏare€speculative€and€consequential€in€nature,€such€as€higher€utility€bills€incurred€because€of€singleÏpane€windows€in€the€apartment€they€moved€into.€Ìà  àThe€complaint€in€this€cause€alleges€fraud€and€requests€that€the€deed€of€trust€and€warrantyÏdeed€be€declared€null€and€void.€€It€also€seeks€the€return€of€the€purchase€money€to€either€the€GagesÏor€to€their€mortgage€company,€as€well€as€compensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€Ìà  àIn€Tennessee,€it€has€been€held€that:ÌÓÓà8  à[a]n€individual€induced€by€fraud€to€enter€into€a€contract€may€elect€between€twoÏremedies.€€He€may€treat€the€contract€as€voidable€and€sue€for€the€equitable€remedy€ofÏrescission€or€he€may€treat€the€contract€as€existing€and€sue€for€damages€at€law€underÏthe€theory€of€deceit€in€the€ordinary€case.€€The€former€is€a€contract€action,€while€theÏlatter€is€grounded€in€tort.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ9VÓòòò òJustice€v.€Anderson€Countyó óóó,€955€S.W.2d€613,€616€(Tenn.€App.€1997)€œ(citing€ò òòòVance€v.€Schulderó óóó,Ð $à" Ð547€S.W.2d€927,€931€(Tenn.€1977)).›€€The€plaintiffs€in€this€case€sought€both€contractual€remedies€andÏcompensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€Although€rescission€may€have€been€available€under€the€factsÏof€this€case,òòò ò€seeó óóó€òòò òAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrickó óóó,€òòò ò€ó óóó823€S.W.2d€547,€552€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€the€trial€court€choseÐ 0*€%( Ðto€award€compensatory€damages€and€did€not€order€rescission€of€the€contract.Ìà  àThe€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€sets€forth€the€proper€measure€of€damages€for€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation:ÌÓÓà8  à(1)€The€recipient€of€a€fraudulent€misrepresentation€is€entitled€to€recover€as€damagesÏin€an€action€of€deceit€against€the€maker€the€pecuniary€loss€to€him€of€which€theÏmisrepresentation€is€a€legal€cause,€including€(a)€the€difference€between€the€value€ofÏwhat€he€has€received€in€a€transaction€and€its€purchase€price€or€other€value€given€forÏœit;ñGñ›ñGñ€and›€(b)€pecuniary€loss€suffered€otherwise€as€a€consequence€of€the€recipient'sÏreliance€upon€the€misrepresentation.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ¦ZÓòòò òBoling€v.€Tennessee€State€Bankó óóó,€€890€S.W.2d€32,€35€(Tenn.€1994)€(quoting€Restatement€(Second)Ð @837 Ðof€Torts€ðð€549€œ(1977)ñIñ)ñIñ.€€ñGñ›ñGñTherefore,›€in€a€case€of€fraud,€the€measure€of€damages€is€to€compensate€theÐ  :p59 Ðinjured€party€for€actual€damages€by€attempting€to€place€that€party€in€the€same€position€that€he€or€sheÏwould€have€been€in€had€the€fraud€not€œoccurred.€€òòò òSee›€Harrogate€Corp.€v.€Systems€Sales€Corp.ó óóó,€915Ð à ÐS.W.2d€812,€817€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€à À àœÐ pÀ Ðà  àIn›€this€case,€as€to€the€difference€in€value,€the€Gages€contracted€to€pay€$105,000,€but€of€courseÏhad€not€yet€paid€the€full€œamount.€€ñHñ››ñHñThe›€Gagesðð€payments€began€on€April€œ1,›€1992,€with€monthlyÏœpaymentsñJñ€ofñJñ€$1,016.34.›€€These€payments€continued€until€the€Gages€moved€out€of€the€home€in€MayÏ1993,€for€a€total€of€$14,228.76.€€At€trial€the€Gages€requested€the€accumulated€principal,€or€equity,Ïin€the€house€of€$4190.41.€€Clearly€the€Gages€would€be€entitled€to€this€amount,€since€it€is€undisputedÏthat€the€house€is€uninhabitable€and€the€site€may€be€used€only€for€a€purpose€that€does€not€involveÏoccupancy,€such€as€storage.€€Ìà  àUnder€the€Restatement,€the€Gages€are€also€entitled€to€ð ðpecuniary€loss€suffered€otherwise€asÏa€consequence€of€the€recipient's€reliance€upon€the€misrepresentation.ðð€ò òòòBolingóóó ó,€890€S.W.2d€at€œ35›Ð P  М(citing€Restatement›€œ(Second)›€of€Torts€ðð€549€œ(1977)).›€€Mrs.€Gage€testified€at€trial€about€the€extensiveÏimprovements€she€and€her€husband€made€to€the€home€before€they€discovered€the€problems€with€the€Ïseptic€system,€expenses€related€to€the€closing,€expenses€related€to€the€move€into€and€out€of€the€house,Ïexpenses€at€their€present€house,€and€various€additional€œexpenses.€€ñHñ›ñHñThe›€total€of€these€expenses€€wasÏ$16,571.48.€€The€Seamans€produced€no€evidence€that€these€payments€were€not€made,€but€questionÏwhether€many€of€them€are€appropriate€damages.€Ìà  àFrom€the€amount€of€the€award€for€compensatory€damages,€$12,000,€we€can€surmise€that€theÏtrial€court€included€some,€but€not€all€of€the€pecuniary€losses€claimed€by€the€Gages.€€However,€theÏorder€contained€no€explanation€of€how€the€trial€judge€arrived€at€this€amount.€€For€many€of€theÏexpenses€claimed€by€the€Gages,€there€was€no€supporting€documentation,€such€as€checks€or€receipts,Ïonly€Mrs.€Gageððs€testimony.€€Consequently,€the€resolution€of€which€expenses€may€properly€beÏawarded€as€damages€must€involve€issues€of€credibility.€€Ô‡X+ XXXìÜÔThe€trial€Ô#†XìÜXXX+ ßf#ÔÔ‡X+ XXXìÜÔjudge€who€has€the€opportunity€toÐ Ð/ +. Ðobserve€the€witnesses€in€their€manner€and€demeanor€while€testifying€is€in€a€far€better€position€thanÏan€appellate€court€to€decide€issues€related€to€credibility.€€œò òòòSee€McCaleb€v.€Saturn€Corp.ó óóó,€910€S.W.2dÐ ¨3ø.2 Ð412,€415€(Tenn.€1995)Ô#†XìÜXXX+ +g#ÔÔ‡X+ XXXìÜÔñKñòòñKññMñò òñMññNññLñòòñLññNñ;›ñLññKñòòñKññLññMñò òñMññNñòòñNñ€Ô#†XìÜXXX+ ¢h#ÔÔ‡X+ XXXìÜÔWhitaker€v.€Whitakeróóó ó,€957€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€App.€œ1997)Ô#†XìÜXXX+ Ii#ÔÔ‡X+ XXXìÜÔòòñHñò òó óñHñóó.Ô#†XìÜXXX+ Íi#Ô›€€€From€theÐ €5Ð04 Ðrecord€in€this€case,€we€cannot€determine€the€expenses€upon€which€the€trial€courtððs€award€ofÏcompensatory€damage€was€based,€and€therefore€cannot€appropriately€review€the€award€of€damages.€Ð `9°48 ÐConsequently,€we€must€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€an€itemization€of€the€pecuniary€lossesÏawarded€to€the€Gages,€in€addition€to€the€award€of€$4,190.41€for€the€loss€of€their€equity€in€the€home.€ÏOn€remand,€the€trial€court€may€reassess€the€damages€in€addition€to€setting€forth€the€items€ofÏpecuniary€loss€on€which€the€award€is€based.€€Ìà  àThe€Gages€also€argue€that€the€trial€court€should€have€awarded€punitive€damages€in€this€caseÏbecause€of€its€finding€that€the€Seamans€made€a€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€The€decision€to€awardÏpunitive€damages€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€fact„finder.ò ò€òò€See€Hodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.ó óóó,€833Ð ð@  ÐS.W.2d€œ896,€901„02›€(Tenn.€1992).€€œð ðAn›€appellate€œcourt€will›€not€reverse€a€discretionary€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€unless€it€affirmatively€appears€that€such€discretion€has€been€explicitly€abused€to€greatÏinjustice€and€injury€of€the€party€complaining.ðð€€òòò òDouglas€v.€Estate€of€Robertsonóóó ó,€876€S.W.2d€œ95,€97›Ð à Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€The€party€claiming€an€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€has€the€burden€of€showingÏsuch€abuse.€€òòò òSee€Ballard€v.€Herzkeóóó ó,€924€S.W.2d€652,€659€(Tenn.€œ1996);€ò òòòRachels€v.€Steeleó óóó,€633Ð P  ÐS.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€App.€1981).›€€Ìà  àPunitive€damages€are€"restrict[ed]€œ.€.€.›€to€cases€involving€only€the€most€egregious€of€wrongs."€Ïœò òòòHodgesóóó ó,›€833€S.W.2d€œat€901.€€In€Tennessee,€añJñ›ñJñ›€court€may€"award€punitive€damages€only€if€it€finds€aÐ ð@ Ðdefendant€has€acted€either€(1)€intentionally,€(2)€fraudulently,€(3)€maliciously,€or€(4)€recklessly."ò òòò€€Id.€Ð Ð  Ѐóóó óSuch€actions€must€be€shown€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€òòò òSee€id.ó óóóÐ °"  Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€made€no€finding€that€the€Seamansðð€conduct€was€egregious€asÏrequired€under€òòò òHodges€óóó óto€sustain€an€award€of€punitive€damages.€€ð ðWe€cannot€extrapolate€the€trialÐ p&À!$ Ðcourt's€findings€regarding€the€defendants'€intentional€misrepresentations€into€the€requisite€findingÏof€egregious€conduct€contemplated€by€òòò òHodgesó óóó.ðð€€òòò òMurvin€v.€œCoferóóó ó,›€968€S.W.2d€304,€311„12€(Tenn.Ð 0*€%( ÐApp.€1997).€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€to€award€punitiveÏdamages€in€this€case.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.€€€€€€€Ìà  àIn€the€alternative,€the€Gages€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€awarding€treble€damagesÏunder€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ47„18„109(3)›€(1995).œñOñ׃ ×ñOññOñ׃ ×ñOñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€TheÐ °1-0 ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€does€not€apply€to€those€persons€not€in€the€business€of€sellingÏproperty€as€owners€or€brokers.€€òòò òSee€Ganzevoort€v.€Russellóóó ó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€298€(Tenn.€1997);€òòò òseeÐ à Ðalso€œMurvinóóó ó,›€968€S.W.2d€œat€308„09ñOñ››ñOñ.›€€The€òòò òGanzevoortó óóó€court€reasoned€that€œð ð[t]wo›€of€the€statedÐ pÀ Ðpurposes€of€the€Act€are€to€maintain€ððethical€standards€of€dealing€betweenòò€persons€engaged€inÐ P   Ðbusinessóó€and€the€consuming€public,ðð€and€œððto›€protect€consumers€and€legitimate€business€enterprisesÐ 0 € Ðfrom€those€who€engage€in€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices€òòin€the€conduct€of€any€trade€orÐ `  Мcommerceóó.ðð€ð𛀜òòò òGanzevoortó óóó,€949€S.W.2d€at€298òòò ò›€ó óóó(quoting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€47-18-102(2)€&€(4)Ð ð@  Ð(1995)€(emphasis€added)).€€The€record€indicates€that€the€Seamans€built€the€house€at€issue€for€theirÏown€use€and€decided€later€to€sell€it€due€to€their€advancing€age€and€declining€health.€€They€wereÏclearly€not€in€the€business€of€selling€homes€as€a€trade€or€commerce.€€The€only€party€in€the€businessÏof€selling€real€estate€was€Knoxville€Realty.€€As€noted€above,€we€œaffirm›€the€dismissal€of€all€claimsÏagainst€Knoxville€Realty.€€Therefore,€under€these€circumstances,€the€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÏConsumer€Protection€Act€are€inapplicable.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.€€Ìà  àIn€sum,€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€claims€against€Knoxville€Realty€œis›€affirmed.€€The€trialÏcourtððs€decision€not€to€awardœ€treble›€damages€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€œorÏpunitive€damages€is›€also€affirmed.€€We€hold€that€the€award€of€compensatory€damages€may€properlyÏinclude€the€$4,190.41€in€equity€the€Gages€had€in€the€home,€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€an€itemization€of€the€pecuniary€losses€on€which€the€remainder€of€the€$12,000€award€is€based.€ÏOn€remand,€the€trial€court€may,€in€its€discretion,€reassess€and€modify€the€award€of€damages.€€€Ìà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€œpart,›€and€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings,€as€set€forth€above.€€Costs€are€assessed€equally€against€the€Appellants€and€the€ÏAppellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓÔ‡X+ XXXìÜÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ð/ +. Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð ¼0 ,/ Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð X5¨04 ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð D6”15 ÐÌÌó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 9X48 Ðóóò òDAVID€R.€œFARMERñPñ,€›J.ñPñó óÔ#†XìÜXXX+ y#ÔñPñÐ ô9D59 Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌñPñ