’WPC …# VUFa %§ 07­äO 4R f u w u 0J 0TÉ 0^ 0h{ 0rć 0|U 0†Ń 0W 1uē 0d\ U6Ą B)ö DC AMbU*ÆķŁrĘ B8 0UUv~ŖvÓ( D3ū 0@. AOnƽ 0Dƒ D/Ē Bö˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĄĢĄä䥥Ģ0†<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&āõ$”Ń€²Ń Ö€’’Ö EŻ ƒ&¦)ŻŻ  Żą@°°*ģąŚ  Ś2Ś  Ś·‚^!Ԑ3Ų'°°3|xVKӀ2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cž’ << G’’< Œ 9p`(Arial ćŻ ƒ!ŻŌ€ŌŻ  ŻŌ€"ŌŌ€"ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€"XŌĢĢņ ņNovember€12,€1996ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€"ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó hŻ ƒ!ŻŌ€ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ&)ŻŻ  Żą@ ąŚ  ŚŚ  Ś d(-3¦$©©Ż ƒāõ!ŻŃ€²ŃŻ  ŻPtPt HHųH’ö’ņV,(ühhŲ hd'0’Ī’ŗF ® Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  BA Op Geneva ŅŅ  BA Op Geneva Ņ%%%%'’’dxd("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€ŌŻ  ŻŅ ° ŅŅ „ ŅŁ€€ŁŃ  ŃŃ € ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃßL€!# ;+'h|` Å `€€LßĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFĻTENNESSEE€ĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢHISTORIC€DANDRIDGE€LIMITED€€€€€:€€€€€JEFFERSON€CIRCUIT€ĢPARTNERSHIP,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€CA€No.€03A01„9604„CV„00153ĢFIVE€RIVERS€LAND€COMPANY,€€€€€€:ĢGeneral€Partner,€and€€€€€€€€€€€:ĢROGER€CAMERON€and€wife,€€€€€€€€:ĢELIZABETH€CAMERON€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€Ģ€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€€€€€:€€€€€BEN€W.€HOOPER,€IIĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€JUDGEĢvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ĢMERRILL€L.€GASS€and€€€€€€€€€€€€:ĢUNKNOWN€CONTRACTOR€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€€€€€:€€€€€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢSTANLEY€F.€RODEN,€WITH€TESTERMAN,€WARREN€&€RODEN,€OF€KNOXVILLE,ĻTENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANTSĢĢR.€LOY€WALDROP,€JR.,€WITH€LEWIS,€KING,€KRIEG,€WALDROP€&€CATRON,€OFĻKNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEE€JEAN€GASS,€ADMINISTRATRIX€OF€THEĻESTATE€OF€MERRILL€GASS,€DECEASEDĢĢĢĢĢĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NĢĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sp.J.ĢĢĢÓÓą ąą ąThe€real€parties€in€interest€in€this€litigation€are€ĻPlaintiffs€Roger€Cameron€and€Elizabeth€Cameron€and€Defendant„AppelleeĻMerrill€Gass,€who€will€be€referred€to€in€this€opinion€as€theĻPlaintiffs€and€Defendant.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiffs„Appellants,€Roger€Cameron€and€wife,ĻElizabeth€Cameron,€have€appealed€from€a€jury€verdict€in€their€suitĻÖ€$Öagainst€Defendant„Appellee€Merrill€Gass€for€damages€resulting€to€aĻparty€wall€between€adjoining€buildings€owned€by€the€parties.€€WeĻaffirm.ĢĢą ąą ąIn€1989€the€Plaintiffs€(hereafter€the€Camerons€or€Mr.ĻCameron)€and€Defendant€(hereinafter€Mr.€Gass)€owned€adjoiningĻbusiness€buildings€located€on€the€east€side€of€Broad€Street€in€theĻCity€of€Dandridge.€€The€buildings€had€a€common€brick€store€front€orĻfacade€and€had€a€party€wall€between€the€two€buildings.€€The€buildingsĻwere€believed€to€have€been€constructed€about€1875.€€They€were€two„story€buildings€but€were€lacking€in€modern€plumbing,€electricalĻwiring,€central€heating€and€air€conditioning€and€the€ravages€of€timeĻhad€taken€its€toll€and€both€buildings€were€in€a€very€poor€state€ofĻrepair.€€Mr.€Gass€purchased€his€building€from€members€of€his€familyĻin€1965€for€$10,700.€€He€was€a€pharmacist€and€had€formerly€occupiedĻthe€building,€but€it€was€vacant€in€1989.€€By€1987€the€building€hadĶreached€such€deteriorated€state€that€the€City€of€Dandridge€issued€anĻorder€to€Mr.€Gass€to€either€repair€the€building€or€tear€it€down.ĢĢą ąą ąIn€October,€1989,€Mr.€Cameron€purchased€his€building€fromĻMr.€James€C.€Smith.€€Mr.€Smith€had€been€operating€an€automobile€partsĻstore€in€the€building€but€was€retiring€and€Mr.€Cameron's€building€wasĻvacated.€€Mr.€Cameron€paid€Mr.€Smith€$10,000€for€the€building.€€TheĻbuilding€was€not€suitable€for€renting€at€the€time€Mr.€CameronĻpurchased€it.€€It€was€his€intention,€however,€to€refurbish€theĻbuilding,€use€the€second€story€for€his€office,€and€lease€or€rent€theĻother€part€of€the€building.€€Mr.€Cameron€had€previous€experience€inĻbuying€and€refurbishing€old€buildings€in€Greeneville€and€Knoxville.€ĻIt€appears€he€did€not€have€much€operating€capital€and€had€financedĻhis€previous€operating€expenses€by€forming€limited€partnerships€andĻselling€interest€in€his€developments€and€by€borrowing€from€banks€andĻpledging€the€properties€as€securities.€€This€was€also€his€plan€forĻfinancing€the€Dandridge€building.€€At€the€time€Mr.€Cameron€purchasedĻthe€building,€he€paid€approximately€$2,000€out€of€his€personal€fundsĻand€borrowed€approximately€$8,300€from€First€Peoples€Bank.ĢĢą ąą ąIt€appears€Mr.€Gass€had€made€no€repairs€to€his€buildingĻafter€receiving€notice€from€the€city€to€either€repair€or€demolish€hisĻbuilding,€nor€had€Mr.€Cameron€repaired€his€building€after€hisĻpurchase€of€it.€€Consequently,€in€April,€1990,€the€city€gave€noticeĶto€each€of€them€to€either€repair€or€demolish€their€buildings.€€TheĻnotice€further€stated:€"If€repairs€or€demolition€is€not€started€by€6„10„90,€the€building€will€be€vacated€and€work€will€be€completed€byĻCity."€€Mr.€Gass€elected€to€tear€down€his€building€and€employed€JohnĻEd€Smith€&€Son,€Inc.€(Smith)€to€do€the€work.€€Mr.€Cameron,€however,Ļelected€to€repair€his€building€and€obtained€a€building€permit€fromĻthe€city.ĢĢą ąą ąGass's€contractor,€Smith,€tore€his€building€down€andĻremoved€it€from€the€premises€in€July€and€August,€1990,€but€left€theĻparty€wall€between€the€buildings€intact.ĢĢą ąą ąMr.€Cameron€proceeded€with€his€plans€for€financing€theĻremodeling€of€his€building€but€no€repairs€were€made.€€In€April€orĻMay,€1990,€Mr.€Cameron€made€an€application€for€a€loan€from€the€bankĻto€partially€finance€the€repairs€to€the€building,€which€he€estimatedĻto€be€approximately€$60,000.€€In€August,€1990,€Mr.€Cameron€prepared€aĻlist€of€expenses€he€estimated€it€would€take€to€refurbish€the€buildingĻand€put€it€in€rentable€condition.€€The€total€amount€was€$59,902.98.€ĻThe€biggest€expense€listed€was€"Demolition€&€clean„up,€includingĻfoundation€demo.€$10,290.00."€€He€also€talked€to€a€number€of€peopleĻwho€expressed€an€interest€in€becoming€limited€partners€in€theĻproject.€€In€September,€1990,€he€obtained€a€certificate€of€limitedĻpartnership€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Revised€Uniform€LimitedĶPartnership€Act,€under€the€name€of€Historic€Dandridge€LimitedĻPartnership.€€In€April,€1991,€Mr.€Cameron€and€his€wife,€Elizabeth,Ļexecuted€a€deed€for€the€building€to€the€Limited€Partnership€for€aĻstated€consideration€of€$10,000.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Cameron€were€the€onlyĻmembers€of€the€partnership.ĢĢą ąą ąIn€October,€1990,€Mr.€Cameron€was€notified€by€the€bankĻwhere€he€had€made€his€application€for€a€loan€to€repair€the€buildingĻthat€the€loan€had€been€denied.€€He€testified€that€without€the€moneyĻhe€was€expecting€to€get€from€this€loan€he€did€not€have€the€funds€toĻproceed€with€repairing€the€building€as€he€had€planned.€€He€furtherĻtestified€that€for€this€reason€he€had€released€from€their€commitmentsĻthe€people€who€had€expressed€an€interest€in€becoming€limited€partnersĻin€the€project.ĢĢą ąą ąNo€repairs€were€made€to€the€Cameron€building€until€about€aĻyear€after€the€Gass€building€had€been€removed€when€it€was€discoveredĻa€portion€of€the€foundation€wall€was€beginning€to€deteriorate.€€Mr.ĻCameron€got€a€crew€of€men€into€the€basement€of€the€building€who€tookĻout€wood€post„and„beam€type€floor€supports€and€put€in€metal€jackĻposts€on€concrete€footings.€€They€also€removed€lumber€and€other€itemsĻfrom€the€building€to€relieve€extra€weight.€€The€foundation€wall€didĻultimately€collapse€about€September,€1991,€but€the€metal€jack€postsĶplaced€under€the€building€apparently€kept€the€building€from€collapsing.ĢĢą ąą ąThere€had€been€no€conflicts€or€problems€between€Mr.€CameronĻand€Mr.€Gass€over€the€removal€of€the€Gass€building€until€about€theĻtime€it€became€apparent€a€portion€of€the€retaining€wall€or€foundationĻunder€the€party€wall€was€in€danger€of€collapsing.€€A€disagreementĻgrew€out€of€the€terms€of€a€release€from€liability€which€Mr.€CameronĻwas€to€give€to€Mr.€Gass€while€employees€of€Mr.€Cameron€were€workingĻon€Mr.€Gass's€property.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiffs€filed€suit€against€the€Defendant,€allegingĻthe€parties€owned€adjoining€buildings€which€shared€a€party€wall.€TheyĻalleged€that€in€1990€the€Defendant€hired€a€contractor€to€tear€hisĻbuilding€down€and€in€the€process€the€contractor€damaged€the€partyĻwall€and€interior€of€Plaintiffs'€building.€€The€Defendant€and€hisĻcontractor€were€negligent€in€failing€to€provide€adequate€lateralĻsupport€to€the€party€wall.€€Plaintiff€alleged€he€had€requested€accessĻonto€Defendant's€property€in€order€to€repair€his€own€property,€butĻDefendant€had€refused.€€Because€Defendant€had€refused€him€permissionĻto€go€upon€his€property€to€access€the€party€wall,€Plaintiff€had€beenĻunable€to€mitigate€damages€to€the€wall.€€Plaintiffs€asked€for€aĻmandatory€injunction€requiring€Defendant€to€allow€Plaintiffs€toĻaccess€the€party€wall€over€Defendant's€property.€€Plaintiffs€askedĶfor€compensatory€damages€in€the€amount€of€the€estimated€cost€ofĻrepairs€to€the€party€wall€or€actual€cost€of€repairs€or€$85,850.00.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Defendant,€for€answer€to€the€complaint,€admitted€theĻparties€were€the€owners€of€adjoining€buildings€with€a€party€wall.€€HeĻadmitted€he€hired€a€contractor€to€tear€his€building€down€in€responseĻto€an€order€from€the€city.€€He€denied,€however,€that€he€or€hisĻcontractor€were€guilty€of€any€acts€of€negligence€resulting€in€damageĻto€the€party€wall.€€Defendant€admitted€Plaintiff€requested€permissionĻto€go€upon€his€property€for€the€purpose€of€making€repairs€to€theĻparty€wall.€€He,€in€turn,€granted€Plaintiff€permission€on€theĻcondition€Plaintiff€give€him€a€release€and€agreement€to€indemnify€himĻfor€any€damages€anyone€might€suffer€while€on€his€property,€butĻPlaintiff€refused€to€sign€such€an€agreement.€€Defendant,€as€anĻaffirmative€defense,€alleged€the€Plaintiffs€failed€to€mitigate€anyĻdamages€to€the€party€wall€and€if€the€party€wall€was€damaged€it€wasĻmore€the€fault€of€Plaintiff€than€the€Defendant.ĢĢą ąą ąShortly€after€the€Defendant€had€filed€his€answer€to€theĻcomplaint,€his€death€was€suggested€and€an€order€was€enteredĻsubstituting€his€widow,€Jean€Gass,€Executor€of€the€Estate€of€MerrillĻL.€Gass,€as€Defendant.ĢĢą ąą ąUpon€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€Plaintiff€offered€proof€toĻsupport€a€claim€for€lost€rentals€on€the€theory€the€damage€to€theĻparty€wall€had€caused€a€delay€in€his€repairing€the€building€andĻputting€it€in€a€tenable€condition.€€This€relief€was€not€sought€in€theĻcomplaint€but€no€objections€were€made€at€the€trial€by€the€defense.ĢĢą ąą ąAt€the€close€of€Plaintiffs'€proof€and€again€at€the€close€ofĻall€the€proof,€counsel€for€the€Defendant€moved€for€a€directed€verdictĻon€the€issue€of€lost€rentals.€€In€response€to€the€motion,€the€courtĻstated€he€didn't€think€it€was€proper€to€submit€it€to€the€jury€becauseĻit€was€too€speculative.€€The€record€fails€to€show€that€the€court€didĻdirect€a€verdict€but€he€did€not€charge€the€jury€on€the€issue.ĢĢą ąą ąAt€the€conclusion€of€the€court's€charge,€the€jury€was€givenĻa€"Comparative€Fault€Verdict€Form."€€They€returned€the€form€showingĻthey€found€the€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€each€chargeable€with€50%€ofĻthe€total€fault.€€In€answer€to€the€question€of€total€amount€ofĻdamage,€if€any,€they€listed€a€zero€after€Plaintiff's€name.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiffs'€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€overruled€andĻthey€have€appealed,€presenting€the€following€issues€for€review:€€"DidĻthe€Trial€court€err€by€not€granting€a€new€trial€upon€theĻinsufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€the€jury€verdict?€€Did€theĻTrial€Court€err€in€excluding€the€testimony€of€plaintiffs'€witness,ĶHoward€Eugene€Ford,€as€to€threats€made€by€the€deceased,€Merrill€Gass?€ĻDid€the€Trial€Court€err€by€excluding€as€part€of€plaintiffs'€proof€ofĻdamages€loss€of€income€to€real€property?"ĢĢą ąą ąIn€considering€Appellants'€first€issue,€we€must€look€to€theĻprovisions€of€Rule€13(d),€TRAP,€which,€as€pertinent,€provides:€Ļ"Findings€of€fact€by€a€jury€in€civil€actions€shall€be€set€aside€onlyĻif€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict."€€We€findĻthere€was€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€€TheĻpivotal€issue€of€damage€to€the€party€wall€centered€around€theĻcollapse€of€a€portion€of€the€foundation€which€supported€the€partyĻwall.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiffs€offered€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Jesse€Mise,€aĻstructural€engineer€and€a€very€credible€expert€witness,€who€testifiedĻthat€in€his€opinion€the€collapse€of€the€wall€was€caused€by€the€factĻthat€after€Mr.€Gass's€contractor€removed€the€building€and€debris€fromĻthe€lot,€the€lot€was€leveled€and€railroad€cross„€ties€were€thenĻplaced€at€a€15šš€angle,€resting€on€the€sills€of€the€party€wall€andĻextending€some€six€feet€back€onto€the€vacant€lot.€€Plywood€was€placedĻon€top€of€the€railroad€crossties€and€plastic€was€put€on€top€of€that.€ĻThen€a€thick€layer€of€gravel€was€spread€over€the€crossties€and€theĻentire€vacant€lot.€€This€caused€rainwater€to€pool€on€the€lot€and€theĻweight€of€the€water,€as€the€ground€became€saturated,€together€withĶthe€weight€of€the€crossties€against€the€party€wall,€caused€theĻfoundation€to€collapse.€€Mr.€Mise€testified€he€had€visited€theĻbuilding€in€March,€1992,€which€was€approximately€six€months€beforeĻthe€wall€collapsed.€€On€cross€examination€Mr.€Mise€testified€thatĻwhen€he€first€saw€the€condition€of€the€wall,€he€warned€Mr.€CameronĻthe€wall€was€dangerous€and€needed€to€be€fixed.€€He€testified€Mr.ĻCameron€could€have€braced€the€wall€from€the€inside€and€had€Mr.ĻCameron€contacted€him€earlier,€he€could€have€designed€a€bracingĻmethod€to€keep€the€wall€from€falling.€€He€also€said€Mr.€Cameron€couldĻhave€jacked€the€joist€up€and€taken€the€old€wall€out€and€replaced€it.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiffs€also€called€Mr.€Howard€Ford€as€a€witness.€ĻAlthough€he€was€not€qualified€as€an€expert,€he€worked€for€theĻrailroad€and€was€familiar€with€construction.€€His€testimonyĻcorroborated€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Mise€as€to€the€condition€of€theĻadjoining€premises,€the€railroad€ties,€accumulation€of€water,€and€theĻcauses€of€the€collapse€of€the€wall.ĢĢą ąą ąPlaintiffs€also€called€Mr.€John€Greer,€a€professional€realĻestate€appraiser,€to€testify€as€to€the€value€of€the€building€beforeĻand€after€the€wall€collapsed.€€He€testified€that€in€his€opinion€theĻland€on€which€the€building€was€located€had€a€value€of€$4,100.€€HeĻalso€testified,€in€his€opinion,€the€building€had€a€value€of€$55,000Ļbefore€the€Gass€building€was€torn€down€but€after€the€foundation€wallĶcollapsed,€it€had€a€zero€value.€€This€corroborated€the€Plaintiff'sĻtestimony€that€in€his€opinion€the€building€had€a€value€of€$60,000Ļprior€to€the€collapse€of€the€wall€but€was€not€worth€restoration€afterĻthe€wall€collapsed.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Defendant€called€Mr.€Maynard€Franscen€who€was€cityĻbuilding€inspector€for€the€City€of€Dandridge€from€about€1985€to€1989.€ĻHe€was€familiar€with€the€condition€of€both€the€Gass€building€and€theĻCameron€building.€€He€issued€the€original€repair€or€tear€down€noticeĻto€Mr.€Gass€on€his€building€and€discussed€with€Mr.€Cameron€theĻcondition€of€his€building.€€He€described€the€Cameron€building€asĻbeing€"very€poor."€€He€stated€"the€structure€was€probably€salvageableĻbut€it€(would€take)€a€lot€of€work€and€expense."€€He€described€theĻbrick€fascia€as€loose.€€A€lot€of€the€morter€was€crumbling€and€neededĻto€be€remortered.€€The€roof€had€to€be€repaired.€€The€footingsĻunderneath€had€to€be€shored€up€"and€there€was€one€weight„bearing€wallĻbetween€that€the€other€building€that€was€torn€down€that€was€a€commonĻwall."ĢĢą ąą ąDefendant€also€called€Mr.€Sam€Pipkin,€a€professionalĻappraiser,€to€testify€as€to€the€value€of€the€Cameron€property€inĻ1990.€€He€did€not€make€a€before€and€after€the€collapse€of€the€wallĻappraisal.€€He€valued€the€property€as€of€1990€at€a€total€of€$20,000Ļand€placed€a€value€of€$16,272€on€the€building€and€$3,681€on€the€land.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Defendant€also€presented€Mr.€Jarvis€Johnson€who€wasĻemployed€by€John€Ed€Smith€and€Sons,€the€contractor€employed€by€Mr.ĻGass€to€tear€his€building€down.€€Mr.€Johnson€prepared€the€bid€on€theĻcontract€for€John€Ed€Smith€and€apparently€supervised€the€workers€whenĻthe€building€was€torn€down€and€the€vacant€lot€was€prepared€after€theĻbuilding€was€removed.€€He€explained€why€and€how€the€railroadĻcrossties€were€placed€on€the€Gass€property€after€the€building€wasĻremoved€and€about€which€Mr.€Mise€and€Mr.€Ford€testified€as€being€onĻthe€property.€€Mr.€Johnson€said€that€after€the€Gass€building€had€beenĻremoved€there€was€a€large€hole€leading€from€the€Gass€property€intoĻthe€basement€of€the€Cameron€building.€(This€apparently€was€where€aĻpart€of€the€foundation€under€the€party€wall€had€previously€fallen€asĻmentioned€in€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Franscen.)€€Mr.€Johnson€explainedĻthat€in€order€to€keep€the€gravel€being€spread€on€the€Gass€propertyĻfrom€falling€into€the€basement€of€the€Cameron€building,€they€placedĻrailroad€ties€on€the€Gass€lot,€extended€them€to€the€bottom€of€theĻparty€wall,€and€then€placed€plywood,€plastic€and€gravel€over€theĻcrossties.€€He€stated€the€crossties€were€not€resting€on€the€buildingĻbut€were€cantilevered.€€He€further€explained€there€was€a€"scuttleĻhole"€leading€from€the€Cameron€basement€under€the€Gass€building€andĻthey€covered€the€opening€into€the€Cameron€building€to€keep€gravelĻfrom€going€into€the€Cameron€basement€through€the€opening€of€theĻscuttle€hole.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Defendant€also€called€Mr.€Brent€Blalock,€a€licensedĻarchitect€highly€experienced€in€building€construction.€€His€testimonyĻcentered€around€the€cause€of€the€collapse€of€the€foundation€wallĻsupporting€the€party€wall.€€He€testified€he€inspected€the€CameronĻbuilding€and€adjoining€premises€originally€in€January,€1994,€but€didĻnot€inspect€the€structural€materials€of€the€foundation€to€the€partyĻwall€or€go€into€the€basement€of€the€Cameron€building€at€that€time.€ĻAs€a€result€of€his€first€inspection,€he€was€of€the€same€opinion€asĻexpressed€by€Mr.€Mise€and€Mr.€Ford€that€the€accumulation€of€water€onĻthe€Gass€vacant€lot€had€caused€hydrostatic€pressure€to€build€up€andĻcause€the€wall€to€collapse.€€He€inspected€the€Cameron€building€aĻsecond€time€in€June€and€again€in€July,€1995,€which€was€only€a€fewĻdays€before€the€trial.€€On€these€occasions€he€went€into€the€basementĻof€the€building€and€inspected€the€materials€from€which€the€collapsedĻfoundation€wall€was€constructed.€€He€also€learned€for€the€first€timeĻof€the€"scuttle€hole"€ditch€which€extended€from€the€Cameron€buildingĻunder€the€Gass€building.€€These€findings€caused€him€to€abandon€hisĻoriginal€theory€that€hydrostatic€pressure€had€caused€the€wall€toĻcollapse.€€He€testified€he€found€the€collapsed€wall€was€lying€in€aĻhorizontal€position€on€the€floor€"and€had€been€broken€upĻsignificantly."€€He€described€the€wall€as€having€been€constructed€ofĻconcrete€perhaps€more€than€100€years€ago.€€There€was€no€structuralĻsteel€in€the€wall.€€The€concrete€was€in€"very,€very€poor€condition."€Ķ"This€wall€is€very€low€quality€concrete€by€modern€day€standards."€Ļ"I'm€not€sure€that€this€wall€had€the€structural€integrity€to€lastĻmuch€longer€anyway."€€He€testified€he€brought€out€a€piece€of€theĻcement€which€was€apparently€a€piece€of€the€top€of€the€wall€and€wasĻasked€by€counsel€to€describe€the€consistency€of€the€concrete€to€theĻjury.€€The€following€is€part€of€his€response:€€"I€took€that€piece€ofĻconcrete,€and€as€I€looked€at€it,€I€could€tell€that€it€is€in€very,Ļvery€poor€condition.€€I€tried€to€be€as€careful€with€it€as€I€could.€€IĻplaced€it€in€my€car.€€When€I€arrived€here€today,€I€took€it€out€of€theĻcar€and€put€it€in€a€bag.€€When€I€came€in€and€sat€down€outside,€IĻapparently€sat€[sic]€it€down€too€hard€on€the€floor€and€it€actuallyĻbroke€in€two€„„€broke€in€numerous€pieces.€€When€I€got€out€of€theĻparking€lot€it€was€all€in€one€piece€when€I€put€it€in€a€bag."€€The€bagĻcontaining€the€concrete€was€filed€as€an€exhibit€and,€for€the€mostĻpart,€it€is€pulverized€into€small€gravel.€€Mr.€Blalock€testified€theĻengineering€principle€behind€the€party€wall€was€for€the€loading€orĻweight€on€the€wall€to€come€from€above,€so€the€weight€coming€from€theĻtop€of€the€wall€always€exceeded€the€loading€or€pressure€coming€fromĻthe€side€of€the€wall,€or€the€wall€would€fail€because€there€was€noĻreinforcing€in€the€wall.€€His€rationale€was€that€when€the€weight€ofĻthe€Gass€building€was€removed€from€the€top€of€the€party€wall,€theĻpressure€from€the€fill€of€the€vacant€lot€caused€the€horizontal€wightĻto€become€disproportionate€to€the€vertical€weight€and€the€wallĻfailed.€€Mr.€Blalock€testified€that€in€1990€when€Mr.€Cameron€noticedĶthe€wall€was€likely€to€fail,€he€could€have€saved€the€wall€byĻbuttressing€it€with€12„inch€block.€€He€stated€that€three€buttressesĻof€12„inch€block€filled€with€concrete€and€with€vertical€rebar€in€eachĻcase,€spaced€equally€along€the€wall,€at€a€cost€of€approximatelyĻ$6,000,€could€have€been€constructed€inside€the€basement€and,€in€hisĻopinion,€would€have€prevented€the€collapse€of€the€wall.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€record€shows€the€Plaintiff€purchased€the€property€inĻOctober,€1989.€€The€trial€of€the€case€was€in€July,€1995.€€The€onlyĻwork€the€Plaintiff€performed€in€that€period€of€approximately€sixĻyears€was€to€place€the€metal€jack€post€under€the€sills€of€theĻbuilding€in€1991.€€The€main€reason€for€not€repairing€the€buildingĻduring€that€time€was€lack€of€finances.€€Mr.€Cameron€filed€a€ChapterĻ13€petition€in€bankruptcy€in€June,€1993.€€In€his€bankruptcy€petition,Ļhe€listed€the€Cameron€building€at€a€value€of€$10,000€and€the€balanceĻowed€to€Peoples€Bank€for€the€loan€it€made€in€1990€on€the€buildingĻwhich€had€increased€to€approximately€$600€more€than€the€originalĻloan.ĢĢą ąą ąUnder€the€proof€in€the€record,€we€find€there€was€materialĻevidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€verdict€of€the€jury€as€toĻdegree€of€fault€and€liability.ĢĢą ąą ąIn€Appellants'€second€issue,€they€say€the€court€was€inĻerror€in€sustaining€the€Appellee's€objection€to€the€testimony€ofĻAppellants'€witness,€Mr.€Howard€Ford,€when€he€was€asked€to€repeatĻcertain€statements€Mr.€Ford€heard€the€deceased,€Mr.€Gass,€make€to€Mr.ĻCameron€denying€Mr.€Cameron€permission€to€go€upon€Mr.€Gass'sĻproperty.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€court€sustained€the€objection€on€two€grounds.€€He€heldĻthat€since€Mr.€Gass€was€now€deceased,€the€testimony€was€barred€by€TCAĻšš€24„1„203,€known€as€the€dead€man's€statute,€and€it€was€a€violationĻof€the€hearsay€rule.€€The€Appellant€made€an€offer€of€proof€which,€asĻpertinent,€was€as€follows:Ģ"Q.ą ąą ąMr.€Ford,€we€previously€referred€to€a€conversation€that€youĻwitnessed€between€Mr.€Cameron€and€Mr.€Merrill€Gass.€€Can€you,€please,Ļtell€us€what€you€heard?Ģ"A.ą ąą ąMr.€Cameron€approached€Mr.€Gass....Ģ"Q.ą ąą ąWhen€was€this...?Ģ"A.ą ąą ąThis€was€after€the€wall€had€collapsed.Ģ"Q.ą ąą ąOkay.Ģ"A.ą ąą ąI€remember€hearing€Mr.€Gass€telling€him€not€to€get€on€theĻproperty.€Ģ"Q.ą ąą ąOkay.Ģ"A.ą ąą ąAnd€that's,€basically,€what€I€heard.€€At€that€point€thatĻconversation€got€heated,€and€I€went€on€over€to€the€workers€and€stayedĻwith€them.Ģ"ą ą€Q.ą ąą ąOkay.€€When€you€mean€heated,€who€was€heated?Ģ"A.ą ąą ąMr.€Gass€was.€€....Ģ"Q.ą ąą ąWeren't€real€kind€words,€...?Ģ"A.ą ąą ąI€couldn't€hear€the€words€exactly.€€I€know€he€was€loud€andĻargumentative."ĢĢą ąą ąTCA€šš€24„1„203,€as€pertinent,€provides:ĢŅ ž ŅŅ ½ ŅÓÓą ąIn€actions€or€proceedings€by€or€against€executors,Ļadministrators,€or€guardians,€in€which€judgments€may€beĻrendered€for€or€against€them,€neither€party€shall€beĻallowed€to€testify€against€the€other€as€to€anyĻtransaction€with€or€statement€by€the€testator,Ļintestate,€or€ward,€unless€called€to€testify€thereto€byĻthe€opposite€party.ĢĢĢĢŅ ° ŅŅ 9 ŅÓÓą ąą ąSince€Mr.€Ford€was€not€a€party€to€this€litigation,€we€findĻhe€was€eligible€to€testify€as€to€what€he€heard€Mr.€Gass€say€to€Mr.ĻCameron.€€In€the€case€of€ņ ņSpiller€v.€McDonald,€Kuhn,€Smith,ĻMilleró ó€ņ ņand€Taitó ó,€735€S.W.2d€446€(Tenn.App.1986)€the€court,€we€thinkĻcorrectly€and€concisely,€stated€the€two€requirements€to€bring€a€caseĻwithin€the€statute€as€follows:ĢŅ S ŅŅ  ŅÓÓą ąTwo€things€must€concur€to€bring€a€case€within€theĻoperation€of€the€statute€and€authorize€the€rejection€ofĻthe€evidence:€€(1)€the€proposed€witness€must€be€a€partyĻto€the€suit€in€such€a€way€that€judgment€may€be€renderedĻfor€or€against€him;€(2)€the€subject€matter€of€hisĻtestimony€must€be€of€some€transaction€with€or€statementĶby€the€testator€or€intestate.€€ņ ņMontague€v.ó ó€ņ ņThomasonó ó,Ļ91€Tenn.€168€(1892).Ģą ąIn€ņ ņMontagueó ó,€an€objection€was€made€to€theĻtestimony€of€an€agent€of€defendant€concerning€hisĻconversation€with€plaintiff's€decedent.€€In€holding€theĻevidence€properly€admitted,€our€Supreme€Court€said:Ģą0 ąThe€contention€that€it€was€incompetent€because€theĻinterview€occurred€while€the€witness€was€acting€asĻagent€of€the€defendants€is€unsound.€€The€statuteĻapplies€alone€to€ņņpartiesóó€to€the€litigation.€€EvenĻpersons€directly€interested€in€the€result€of€theĻsuit...are€not€precluded€from€testifying,€ņņif€notĻparties.óóĢĢŅ ° ŅŅ „ ŅÓÓId.€448.ĢĢą ąą ąWe€find€the€court€was€in€error€in€sustaining€the€objectionĻto€Mr.€Ford's€testimony.€€In€view€of€our€holding€on€this€issue,€weĻpretermit€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€Mr.€Ford's€testimony€would€haveĻbeen€hearsay.ĢĢą ąą ąRule€36(b),€TRAP,€provides,€"A€final€judgment€from€whichĻrelief€is€available€and€otherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€set€asideĻunless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantialĻright€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment."€€Under€thisĻrule,€when€we€find€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€his€ruling,€beforeĻwe€can€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€court€and€set€aside€the€jury'sĻverdict,€we€must€find€from€considering€the€entire€record€that€had€theĻjury€not€been€deprived€of€hearing€Mr.€Ford€testify€he€heard€Mr.€GassĻtell€Mr.€Cameron€he€was€"not€to€get€on€the€[Mr.€Gass's]€property,"€weĻmust€find€the€jury€more€probably€than€not€would€have€rendered€aĶverdict€more€favorable€to€Mr.€Cameron.€€We€fail€to€find€the€recordĻsupports€such€a€probability.ĢĢą ąą ąThere€are€two€very€strong€reasons€for€our€reaching€thisĻconclusion:€€1.€We€think€there€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€toĻconvince€the€jury€Mr.€Cameron€did€not€have€permission€to€go€upon€Mr.ĻGass's€property€to€make€repairs€on€his€own€property€and€2.€TheĻundisputed€testimony€of€Mr.€Cameron€is€he€was€tendered€a€document€byĻhis€attorney€granting€him€permission€to€go€upon€Mr.€Gass's€propertyĻprovided€he€released€Mr.€Gass€from€liability.€€Mr.€Cameron€refused€toĻsign€the€document€because€he€thought€the€release€was€too€broad€and€heĻtestified,€"I€wadded€it€up€and€threw€it€in€Mr.€Jones's€garbage€can."€ĻThe€record€fails€to€show€Mr.€Cameron€ever€requested€his€attorney€orĻanyone€on€his€behalf€to€try€to€negotiate€a€more€satisfactoryĻagreement,€nor€did€Mr.€Cameron€himself€try€to€negotiate€anotherĻagreement.ĢĢą ąą ąAlso,€after€the€court€sustained€the€objection€to€Mr.€Ford'sĻtestimony€as€to€what€Mr.€Gass€said€to€Mr.€Cameron,€the€next€questionĻby€Plaintiff's€counsel€to€Mr.€Ford,€and€his€answer,€were:Ģ"Q.ą ąą ąAs€a€result€of€this€meeting,€what€happened?Ģ"A.ą ąą ąWe€couldn't€go€onto€the€property€over€there€to€repairĻdamage€to€our€building."€€ĢĢą ąą ąConsidering€the€evidence€in€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€findĻthe€testimony€of€Mr.€Ford€as€to€what€Mr.€Gass€said€to€Mr.€CameronĻwould€have€only€been€cumulative€in€establishing€that€Mr.€Gass€wouldĻnot€consent€to€Mr.€Cameron's€going€upon€his€property.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiffs'€third€and€final€issue€is:€"Did€the€trialĻcourt€err€by€excluding€as€part€of€Plaintiffs'€proof€of€damages€lossĻof€income€to€real€property?"ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Appellants,€in€their€statement€of€this€issue,Ļincorrectly€state€the€action€of€the€court€in€saying€"the€court€erredĻby€excluding€as€part€of€Plaintiffs'€proof€of€damages€to€realĻproperty."€€€In€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€court€did€not€exclude€anyĻpart€of€Plaintiffs'€proof€on€this€issue.€€The€court,€however,€did€notĻcharge€the€jury€on€the€loss€of€rent.€€Prior€to€charging€the€jury,€theĻcourt,€in€response€to€Appellee's€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€onĻthis€issue,€said€he€thought€the€proof€was€too€speculative€to€submitĻthe€issue€to€the€jury.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court's€holding.ĢĢą ąą ąThere€is,€however,€another€compelling€reason€why€the€courtĻmust€be€sustained€on€this€issue.€€The€Plaintiffs€offered€no€proof€ofĻwhat€rental€value,€if€any,€the€Cameron€building€had€prior€to€itsĻalleged€damage€by€the€Defendant,€or€what€its€rental€value,€if€any,Ļwas€after€the€damage.€€Upon€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€PlaintiffsĶoffered€proof€and€testified€the€damages€to€the€building€were€of€aĻtemporary€nature€and€could€be€repaired.€€They€argued€to€the€courtĻthat,€since€the€damage€was€temporary,€the€loss€of€rent€rule,€asĻrecognized€in€this€jurisdiction,€was€applicable.€€In€offering€theirĻproof,€however,€they€offered€no€proof€as€to€the€diminution€in€rent€ofĻthe€building€before€and€after€it€was€damaged.€€Thir€proof€was€allĻpremised€on€the€assumption€that€had€the€building€been€refurbishedĻprior€to€its€damage,€after€the€Gass€building€was€demolished€it€wouldĻhave€had€a€rental€value€of€approximately€$10€per€square€foot,€but€dueĻto€their€delay€in€being€able€to€refurbish€the€building€because€of€theĻdamage€resulting€from€the€Gass€building's€being€demolished,€it€had€noĻrental€value€and€they€had€suffered€loss€of€rents€of€approximatelyĻ$50,000.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€most€recent€reported€€case€in€this€jurisdictionĻaddressing€the€lost€rental€rule€applicable€to€temporary€damages€toĻreal€estate€is€ņ ņCitizens€Real€Estate€v.€Mountain€Statesó óĻņ ņDevelopment€Co.ó ó,€633€S.W.2d€763€(Tenn.App.1981).€€In€that€case,€theĻplaintiff€alleged€it€had,€in€1970,€purchased€land€adjoiningĻdefendant's€property.€€After€its€purchase€of€the€property,€theĻdefendant€encroached€upon€plaintiff's€property€by€constructing€roadsĻand€platting€and€selling€lots,€purporting€to€be€the€owner€thereof.€ĻPlaintiff€asked€the€court€to€establish€the€boundary€line€between€theĻplaintiff€and€defendant,€award€damages€for€the€trespass,€and€enjoinĶdefendant€from€coming€on€plaintiff's€property.€€Upon€the€trial€of€theĻcase,€the€trial€court€found€the€issues€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and,Ļas€pertinent,€awarded€damages.€€On€appeal€to€this€court,€theĻappellant€contended€the€court€did€not€apply€the€proper€rule€forĻfixing€damages.€€This€court€reversed€and€in€doing€so,€as€pertinent,Ļsaid:ĢŅ 4 ŅŅ  ŅÓÓą ąą ąIt€is€necessary€to€comment€upon€the€issueĻof€damages€since€an€improper€measure€of€damages€wasĻapplied€by€the€trial€court.€€Damages€awarded€in€thisĻcase€were€based€upon€the€"taking"€of€the€acreage€inĻquestion.€€The€award€is€inconsistent€with€the€order€ofĻthe€trial€court€that€appellant€must€no€longer€encroachĻupon€appellee's€property.€€Plaintiff€alleged€aĻtrespass€and€a€trespass€which€is€terminated€by€a€courtĻorder€is€treated€as€a€temporary€injury.ĢĢŅ ° ŅŅ  ŅId.€766.ĢĢŅ  ŅŅ  Ņą ąą ąThe€case€of€ņ ņTerminal€Co.€v.€Lellyettó ó,Ļ114€Tenn.€368,€85€S.W.€881€(1904),€asserts€theĻmeasure€of€damages€for€a€temporary€injury€to€propertyĻis€"the€injury€to€the€value€of€the€use€and€enjoymentĻ[of€the€property],€ņņwhich€may€be€measured,€to€aóó€ņņlargeĻextent,€by€the€rental€value€of€the€property,€and€toĻwhat€extent€that€rental€value€is€diminished.óó"€€114ĻTenn.€at€404,€85€S.W.€881.€€This€measure€of€damagesĻhas€been€cited€many€times€by€Tennessee€cases€and€isĻwell„settled€law.€€See€ņ ņSignal€Mountain€PortlandĻCement€Company€v.€Brown,ó ó€141€F.2d€471€(6thĻCir.1944);€ņ ņStanford€v.€Tennesseeó ó€ņ ņValleyĻAuthorityó ó,€18€F.R.D.€152€(M.D.Tenn.1955);€ņ ņHendrixĻv.€City€of€Maryvilleó ó,€58€Tenn.App.€457,€431€S.W.2dĻ292€(1968);€ņ ņCaldwell€v.€Knox€Concreteó ó€ņ ņProductsó ó,Ļ54€Tenn.App.€393,€391€S.W.2d€5€(1964);€ņ ņCity€ofĻColumbia,€v.€Lentzó ó,€39€Tenn.App.€350,€282€S.W.2dĻ787€(1955);€ņ ņTalley€v.€Bakeró ó,€3€Tenn.App.321€(1926).€ĻThus,€ņņthe€measure€of€damages€for€temporary€injury€toĻone's€use€and€enjoyment€of€real€estate€is€theĻdiminution€in€the€property's€rental€value€during€theĻperiod€of€injury€óóand€the€reasonable€cost€ofĻrestoration€of€any€physical€injury€to€the€land.€€ĢCompare€the€old€Tennessee€case€of€ņ ņVincent€v.€Halló ó,Ļ1€Shannon's€Tenn.Cas.€597€(1876),€which€held€whereĻproperty€wrongfully€held€is€recovered€by€the€trueĻowner€he€is€entitled€to€an€account€for€rents€andĻprofits€during€the€period€of€wrongful€withholding.Ģ(Emphasis€ours.)ĢĢŅ ° ŅŅ „ ŅId.€767.ĢĢĢĢÓÓą ąą ąThe€citations€in€the€case€quoted€above€consistently€heldĻthat€the€accepted€method€of€proving€the€temporary€damages€to€aĻleasehold€estate€is€to€show€by€competent€testimony€the€value€of€theĻleasehold€prior€to€the€existence€of€the€damage€and€then€show€theĻvalue€of€the€leasehold€after€the€damage.€€This€the€Plaintiffs€did€notĻdo.€ĢĢą ąą ąThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€The€cost€ofĻthis€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€Appellants€and€the€case€is€remanded€toĻthe€trial€court€for€any€further€necessary€proceedings.ĢÓÓĢĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.J.ĢCONCUR:€ĢĢ__________________________ĢHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ĢĢĢ__________________________ĢCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.