ÿWPC …#†VUFÜ %" 07(_O~4Íá 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX U,Í 0dù U,] U6‰ B)¿ DCè AM+U*x&¢‡È BO 0Ulv~ÁvÓ? D3 0@E AO…ÆÔ 0Uš 0Dï D/3 Bb˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÙP ß-—1·^%·´% <¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&âõ$¡Ñ€²Ñ Ö€ÿÿÖ EÝ ƒ&¦)ÝÝ  Ýà@°°*ìàÚ  Ú2Ú  Úc`…X3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJanuary€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó }Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ&)ÝÝ  Ýà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  Ú d(-3¦$©©Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  ÝPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(-3¦$¢¢Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€!# ;+'h|` Å `€€LßÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌJAMES€HOLDEN€and€MARINA€HOLDEN€€:€€€HAMBLEN€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€CA€No.€03A01„9508„CH„00293Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellees€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€HON.€DENNIS€H.€INMANÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€CHANCELLORÌBOBBY€L.€FRAZIER,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌDORIS€J.€FRAZIER,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌD.€D.€ROBERTS,€EDITH€ROBERTS,€€€:ÌMONTY€F.€SAMS,€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌREMAX€REAL€ESTATE€ONE€OF€€€€€€€€:ÌMORRISTOWN,€INC.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€AFFIRMED€IN€PART,Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€REVERSED€IN€PART,€ANDÌ€€€€€Defendants„Appellants€€€€€€:€€€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCLINTON€R.€ANDERSON,€OF€MORRISTOWN,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANTSÏBOBBY€L.€FRAZIER€AND€DORIS€J.€FRAZIERÌÌC.€DWAINE€EVANS,€OF€MORRISTOWN,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANTSÌD.€D.€ROBERTS€AND€EDITH€ROBERTSÌÌVIRGINIA€A.€SCHWAMM,€WITH€TOWLE€&€SCHWAMM,€OF€KNOXVILLE,ÏTENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sr.J.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€pivotal€issue€on€this€appeal€is,€where€theÏpurchasers€of€a€residence€sue€their€grantors€and€the€grantors€toÏplaintiffs'€grantors€for€damages€based€on€a€defective€Ö€$ÖsepticÏtank€sewer€system€which€did€not€conform€to€the€restrictiveÏcovenants€relating€to€a€sub„surface€sewage€disposal€system,€mayÏthe€trial€court,€in€lieu€of€awarding€or€denying€damages,€òòsuaóóÏòòsponteóó,€order€and€decree€as€follow:€Ì"1.€€The€defendants,€jointly€and€severally,€shall€do€either€ofÏthe€following:€(a)€install€a€sub„surface€sewage€disposal€systemÏin€conformance€with€the€directives€of€the€Hamblen€County€HealthÏDepartment...or€(b)€refund€to€the€Plaintiffs€all€monies€paid€byÏthem€regarding€their€purchase€of€the€house..."€includingÏmortgage€payments€and€other€expenses?€€We€hold€the€answer€isÏnegative,€and€reverse.ÌÌà àà àIn€August,€1992,€the€Plaintiffs„Appellees,€JamesÏHolden€and€Marina€Holden,€entered€into€a€contract€withÏDefendants„Appellants,€Bobby€Frazier€and€wife,€Doris€Frazier€toÏpurchase€Lot€No.€11€of€the€Musick€Acres€Subdivision€located€inÏHamblen€County€outside€the€corporate€limits€of€Morristown.€€TheÍlot€was€improved€with€a€four„bedroom€residence€which€had€beenÏconstructed€in€1989.€€The€sale€of€the€property€was€closed€inÏNovember,€1992,€and€the€Fraziers€executed€a€general€warrantyÏdeed€for€the€property.ÌÌà àà àApproximately€one€year€later€Plaintiffs€Holden€filedÏsuit€against€the€Fraziers€and€Defendants„Appellants,€D.€D.ÏRoberts€and€Edith€Roberts,€who€had€sold€the€property€to€theÏFraziers€in€1989.€€They€also€sued€Defendants,€Monty€F.€Sams€andÏReMax€Real€Estate€One€of€Morristown,€Inc.€(ReMax).€€Mr.€Sams€wasÏan€employee€of€ReMax€which€was€a€real€estate€broker€representingÏthe€Fraziers€in€the€sale€of€the€property.ÌÌà àà àThe€Plaintiffs€alleged€in€their€complaint€that€soonÏafter€moving€into€the€residence€they€began€experiencing€problemsÏwith€the€house,€including€electrical€problems,€plumbingÏproblems,€water€leaks€and€septic€tank€and€field€line€problems.€ÏThey€also€alleged€the€lots€in€the€subdivision,€including€theirÏlot,€had€the€following€sewage€disposal€restrictions:€€"NoÏindividual€sewage€disposal€system€shall€be€permitted€on€any€lotÏunless€such€system€is€designed,€located€and€constructed€inÏaccordance€with€the€requirements,€standards,€and€recommendationsÏof€the€Hamblen€County€Health€Authority.€€Approval€of€such€systemÏas€installed€shall€be€obtained€from€such€Authority."€€TheyÍalleged:€€"[U]pon€information€and€belief€that€the€sewageÏdisposal€system€on€the€property€was€not€designed,€located,€orÏconstructed€in€accordance€with€the€requirements,€standards,€andÏrecommendations€of€the€Hamblen€County€Health€Authority",€asÏrequired€by€the€aforesaid€restrictive€covenant.€€"Sellers€knewÏor€reasonable€[sic]€should€have€known€of€the€material€defectsÏand€electrical€system€defects,€and€were€under€a€duty€to€discloseÏtheir€existence,€nature,€and€extent€to€Buyers.€€These€materialÏdefects€were€both€unknown€to€and€generally€undiscovered€byÏBuyers€before€the€closing,€and€Sellers€hid€and€concealed€theseÏmatters€from€Buyers€instead€of€making€full€disclosure€of€them€asÏthe€law€and€their€agreement€required.€€Such€concealment€andÏnondisclosure€were€intended€to€induce€Buyers€to€purchase€aÏparcel€of€real€property€which€they€would€not€have€purchased€ifÏthe€truth€had€been€disclosed€to€them€and€Buyers€reasonablyÏrelied€upon€such€concealment€and€nondisclosure€by€Sellers.€€TheÏpresence€of€these€undisclosed€and€hidden€material€defects€hasÏgreatly€diminished€the€fair€market€value€of€their€property."ÌÌà àà àThe€relief€for€which€the€Plaintiffs€prayed€in€theirÏcomplaint€was€as€follows:€€"Plaintiffs€pray€that€they€be€awardedÏthe€following:€€1.€€Damages€for€their€financial€and€non„financial€losses€and€injuries.€€As€to€Defendants€Sams€and€ReMax,Ïall€damages€awarded€should€be€trebled€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€47„18„101€et€seq.;€€2.€Punitive€damages€as€provided€by€law;€€3.ÏPrejudgment€interest;€€4.€Attorneys€fees€and€costs;Ì5.€Such€other,€further€and€general€relief€as€Plaintiffs€may€showÏthemselves€entitled€to€upon€final€hearing€of€this€cause."€ÌÌà àà àThe€Fraziers,€for€answer,€admitted€the€Plaintiffs€hadÏa€blockage€in€the€sewer€system€soon€after€moving€into€theÏresidence€and€a€minor€electrical€problem,€but€said€they€paid€forÏunstopping€the€sewer€and€repairing€the€electrical€problem.€€TheyÏdenied€these€conditions€existed€prior€to€the€Fraziers'€movingÏout€of€the€property.€€They€denied€there€were€any€electrical,Ïsewer,€plumbing,€or€septic€tank€problems€existing€at€the€timeÏthey€vacated€the€property€or€that€they€concealed€from€theÏPlaintiffs€any€knowledge€they€had€of€any€defects€in€the€propertyÏat€the€time€of€sale.€€Defendants€said€they€had€no€knowledge€atÏthe€time€of€sale€whether€the€sewer€system€had€been€approved.€ÏBut€after€suit€was€filed,€they€received€a€copy€of€the€originalÏapproval€of€the€septic€system€from€the€Hamblen€County€DepartmentÏof€Health€and€attached€a€copy€as€an€exhibit€to€their€answer.€ÏDefendants€denied€any€liability€to€Plaintiffs€and€joined€issueÏon€all€allegations.ÌÌà àà àDefendants€Roberts,€for€answer,€denied€any€liabilityÏto€the€Plaintiffs.€€They€denied€the€Plaintiffs€had€any€standingÍto€maintain€a€cause€of€action€against€them.€€They€denied€theyÏhad€made€any€misrepresentations€or€concealed€any€informationÏthey€had€of€any€defects€in€the€property€or€its€sewer€disposalÏsystem.€€They€disclaimed€all€liability€to€Plaintiffs.ÌÌà àà àSummary€judgment€was€granted€in€favor€of€DefendantsÏSams€and€ReMax.€€Answers€filed€by€them,€if€any,€are€not€in€theÏrecord€before€us€nor€is€the€action€of€the€court€in€grantingÏsummary€judgment€to€these€Defendants€before€us€on€this€appeal.ÌÌà àà àUpon€the€trial€of€the€case,€as€pertinent€to€the€issuesÏon€this€appeal,€the€proof€showed€a€declaration€of€restrictionsÏwas€filed€which€imposed€numerous€restrictions€on€the€lots€in€theÏsubdivision,€one€of€them€being€the€sewage€disposal€restrictions.€ÏThe€record€also€shows€that€in€May,€1978,€a€permit€for€theÏconstruction€of€a€sub„surface€sewage€disposal€system€on€Lot€11Ïwas€issued€by€the€Health€Department€to€Jean€Evans€and€WayneÏMusick.€€The€permit€was€for€a€three„bedroom€residence.€€TheÏconstruction€of€the€system€was€approved€by€the€Health€DepartmentÏon€May€23,€1978.€€In€the€interim,€a€residence€was€erected€on€theÏlot€but€was€subsequently€destroyed€by€fire.ÌÌà àà àIn€January,€1989,€Defendant€Roberts€purchased€the€lotÏand€entered€into€a€contract€with€Frank€Cheatum€and€Jerry€Holt€toÍerect€a€new€four„bedroom€house€on€the€same€foundation€on€whichÏthe€original€house€was€erected.€€They€also€connected€the€newÏhouse€to€the€same€sewer€system.ÌÌà àà àIn€November,€1989,€the€Roberts€sold€the€property€toÏthe€Fraziers.€€Although€the€deed€from€the€Roberts€to€theÏFraziers€contains€the€following€paragraph:€€"This€conveyance€isÏmade€subject€to€the€restrictions€of€record€in€the€Register'sÏOffice€of€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee,€in€Warranty€Deed€Book€214,Ïpage€433,€and€shown€on€plat€of€record,"€€there€is€no€showingÏeither€the€Roberts€or€the€Fraziers€had€any€knowledge€of€what€theÏrestrictions€were.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€chancellor€took€theÏcase€under€advisement€and€filed€a€memorandum€opinion€finding€theÏPlaintiffs€had€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€to€recoverÏdamages€as€alleged€in€their€complaint€but€held€the€Fraziers€andÏRoberts€were€ordered€to€either€construct€a€sub„surface€sewageÏdisposal€system€or€refund€Plaintiffs'€purchase€price€and€damagesÏas€set€out€above€in€this€opinion,€and€that€the€Roberts€shallÏindemnify€and€hold€the€Fraziers€harmless€from€any€liabilityÏresulting€from€the€judgment.€€The€chancellor's€memorandumÏopinion€is€attached€as€Appendix€"A"€to€this€opinion.€ÌÌà àà àWe€concur€with€the€chancellor€in€his€holding€theÏPlaintiffs€failed€to€carry€their€burden€of€proof€that€theÏDefendants€were€liable€in€damages€to€the€Plaintiffs.€€ThisÏissue,€however,€is€not€before€us€on€this€appeal.ÌÌà àà àIn€view€of€the€findings€of€the€chancellor€in€hisÏmemorandum€opinion,€to€further€summarize€the€testimony€of€theÏparties€and€witnesses€would€serve€only€to€lengthen€this€opinion.ÌÌà àà àThe€salient€facts€in€the€case€are€not€really€inÏdispute.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€record€to€show€the€DefendantsÏmade€any€misrepresentations€to€the€Plaintiffs€nor€is€there€anyÏproof€the€Defendants€concealed€anything€they€knew€or€even€shouldÏhave€known€about€defects€in€the€property.€€We€think€the€proofÏestablishes€that€the€property€which€the€Plaintiffs€purchasedÏfrom€the€Fraziers€had€some€defects€which€manifested€themselvesÏafter€the€Plaintiffs€purchased€the€property.€€The€worst€of€theseÏdefects€was€in€the€septic€tank€and€field€line€system.€€There€isÏno€proof,€however,€that€these€same€defects€manifested€themselvesÏwhile€the€Defendants€owned€the€property€or€that€the€DefendantsÏhad€knowledge€of€them.€€ÌÌà àà àFor€a€seller€of€real€estate€to€be€liable€under€theÏtheories€of€either€fraudulent€misrepresentation€or€failure€toÍdisclose,€he€must€have€actual€knowledge€of€the€defect.€€InÏò òAkbari€v.€Hornó ó,€641€S.W.2d€506€(Tenn.App.1982),€which€involvedÏthe€structural€supports€of€an€attic,€the€defendant€was€notÏliable€to€the€purchasers€when€he€was€not,€in€fact,€aware€of€theÏdamage.€€Purchasers€there€bought€an€old€theater.€€Before€theÏpurchase,€the€owner€did€disclose€that€the€roof€had€been€leaking.€ÏThe€water€leaks€had€deteriorated€the€wooden€trusses€but€thereÏwas€no€evidence€the€defendant€had€knowledge€of€this€damage.€€InÏaffirming€a€judgment€for€defendant,€the€court€stated:€€"[ThisÏCourt€does€not€believe]€that€a€seller€is€liable€for€failure€toÏdisclose€that€which€he€should€have€known€if€he€did€not€in€factÏknow€it."€€òòId.óó€at€507.€ÌÌà àà àThe€majority€rule€corresponds€with€ò òAkbari'só ó€holdingÏthat€actual€fraud€or€reckless€disregard€for€its€truth€isÏnecessary€before€a€non„commercial€owner€is€liable€to€purchasers.ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€general€rule€in€most€jurisdictions€is€thatÏrepresentations€by€a€seller€or€vendor€as€to€theÏsubject€matter€of€the€sale€must€be€made€with€anÏintent€to€deceive€in€order€to€be€fraudulent.€€This€isÏespecially€true€if€the€seller€in€good€faith€believedÏhis€representations€to€be€true€and€did€not€make€themÏrecklessly€or€regardless€of€whether€they€were€true.€ÏLikewise,€it€is€the€general€rule€in€mostÏjurisdictions€that€it€is€necessary€to€show€scienterÏor€knowledge€on€a€vendor's€part€of€the€falsity€of€hisÏrepresentations€in€order€to€sustain€a€charge€of€fraudÏagainst€him.ÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ ° Ò37€Am.Jur.2d€Fraud€&€Deceit€ðð€217.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àA€"misrepresentation"€must€be€a€"fact,"€not€merely€anÏopinion.€ò ò€Dozier€v.€Hawthorne€Development€Co.ó ó,€37€Tenn.ÌApp.€279,€292,€262€S.W.2d€705,€711€(1953).ÌÌà àà àA€vendor€may€also€be€liable€by€failing€to€disclose€aÏdefect€of€which€he€had€knowledge€if€the€vendor€(a)€is€aware€theÏvendee€would€not€discover€the€defect€upon€inspection,€(2)Ïactively€conceals€the€defect,€or€(3)€affirmatively€states€theÏdefect€does€not€exist.€€ò òBelote€v.€Memphis€Development€Co.ó ó,Ï208€€Tenn.€434,€346€S.W.2d€441,€443€(1961).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€ò òCooper€v.ó óÏò òCordova€Sand€and€Gravel€Co.ó ó,€485€S.W.2d€261,€266„67€(1971).€ÏThis€approach,€however,€also€requires€actual€knowledge€of€theÏdefect€by€the€owner.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€that€was€entered€after€the€filing€of€theÏchancellor's€memorandum€opinion€did€not€recite€the€holding€ofÏthe€chancellor€that€Plaintiffs€failed€to€carry€their€burden€ofÏproof.€€The€judgment€recited€instead:€€"The€Court€finds€that€theÏmemorandum€opinion€of€the€court€entered€on€December€1,€1994,Ïshall€be,€and€the€same€hereby€is,€the€judgment€of€this€court."€ÏThe€pertinent€part€of€the€court's€holding€which€was€not€in€theÏdraft€of€the€judgment€is:€€"Regarding€all€the€other€problems€„Ïsewage€odor,€water€leakage€problems,€electrical€aberrations,Ïetc.€„€the€defendants€insist€that€they€had€no€previousÍdifficulties€in€any€of€those€particulars,€that€they€made€noÏmisrepresentation€of€fact€to€the€plaintiffs,€and€that€theyÏwithheld€no€material€information.Ìà àà à"The€most€that€can€be€said€regarding€these€issues€isÏthat€the€evidence€is€evenly€balanced€and€thus€the€defendantsÏmust€prevail."€€We€affirm€this€portion€of€the€judgment€of€theÏcourt.ÌÌà àà àThis€brings€us€to€consideration€of€the€other€portionÏof€the€judgment€which,€as€pertinent,€provides:€€"[I]t€is€herebyÏORDERED,€ADJUDGED€and€DECREED€as€follows:Ìà à1.€€The€Defendants,€jointly€and€severally,€shall€do€eitherÏof€the€following:€Ìà à(a)€install€a€sub„surface€sewage€disposal€system€inÏconformance€with€the€directives€of€the€Hamblen€County€HealthÏDepartment€with€regard€to€a€four„bedroom€home€and€whichÏultimately€is€approved€by€the€Health€Department;€or€(b)€refundÏto€the€Plaintiffs€all€monies€paid€by€them€regarding€theirÏpurchase€of€this€house€including€all€payments€made€toward€theÏprincipal€amount€of€the€mortgage€indebtedness€and€all€sums€paidÏby€them€for€plumbing€and€electrical€repairs€during€theirÏoccupancy.Ìà à2.€€Defendants€Roberts€shall€indemnify€and€hold€harmlessÏDefendants€Frazier€from€any€liability€resulting€from€thisÏJudgment.€Ìà à3.€€The€costs€of€this€cause€shall€be€taxed€to€DefendantsÏRoberts€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary."ÌÌà àà àDefendants€Fraziers€and€Roberts€have€appealed,€sayingÏthe€court€was€in€error,€and€their€issues€for€review€may€beÏsummarized€as€follows:€€(1)€Does€the€evidence€preponderateÏagainst€or€support€the€findings€of€the€court?€(2)€Does€theÏjudgment€exceed€the€relief€requested€in€the€pleadings€and€didÏthe€court€err€in€granting€the€alternative€of€injunctive€reliefÏor€rescission,€as€well€as€indemnification€when€neither€wasÏrequested€in€the€pleadings?€€(3)€Did€the€court€error€in€findingÏthe€subdivision€restrictions€had€been€violated?€€If€not,€(a)Ïdoes€a€subsequent€purchaser€have€a€cause€of€action€against€aÏremote€grantor€and€(b)€did€the€court€err€in€finding€an€impliedÏwarranty€on€the€part€of€an€immediate€vendor€and€a€remote€vendorÏin€favor€of€the€purchaser?€€We€find€the€first€two€issuesÏcontrolling,€and€reverse€for€the€following€reasons.ÌÌà àà àThe€only€relief€asked€for€by€the€Plaintiffs€in€theirÏpleadings€was€compensatory€"damages€for€their€financial€and€non„financial€losses€and€injuries";€(2)€"punitive€damages€asÍprovided€by€law";€(3)€"prejudgment€interest";€(4)€"attorneysÏfees€and€cost";€and€(5)€general€relief.€€At€no€time€in€theÏproceedings€did€the€Plaintiffs€ask€for€or€offer€evidence€inÏsupport€of€mandatory€injunctive€relief€or€rescission€of€theirÏdeed€to€the€property,€nor€were€the€Defendants€given€anÏopportunity€to€respond€to€such€relief.€€The€judgment,€however,Ïholds€the€Defendants€"jointly€and€severally"€responsible€for€theÏdirectives€of€the€decree.€€Also,€Paragraph€2€of€the€decree,Ïwhich€provides:€"Defendants€Roberts€shall€indemnify€and€holdÏharmless€Defendants€Frazier€from€any€liability€resulting€fromÏthe€judgment,"€is€outside€the€pleadings€and€the€proof.ÌÌà àà àThe€Fraziers€filed€no€pleading€asking€that€they€beÏindemnified€or€held€harmless€by€the€Roberts€for€liabilityÏresulting€from€a€judgment.€€No€evidence€was€offered€in€supportÏof€such€judgment€nor€were€the€Roberts€given€an€opportunity€toÏdefend€against€such€judgment.ÌÌà àà àIn€addressing€the€necessity€for€matters€to€be€allegedÏin€the€pleadings€and€supported€by€evidence€before€they€can€beÏadjudicated€by€the€chancery€court,€Gibson's€Suits€in€Chancery,ÏSeventh€Edition,€Section€218,€Grounds€of€a€Decree,€p.€213,€asÏpertinent,€states:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓA€Court€of€Chancery€has€no€jurisdiction€of€anyÏmatter€not€submitted€to€it€in€a€pleading€forÍadjudication;€nor€can€the€defendant€be€called€onÏto€respond€to€anything€not€alleged€against€him.€ÏNeither€can€a€Court€consider€any€evidence€whichÏdoes€not€directly,€or€indirectly,€tend€to€proveÏor€disprove€the€allegations€contained€in€theÏpleadings.€€A€decree€can€neither€be€based€onÏallegations€without€corresponding€proof,€nor€onÏproof€without€corresponding€allegations.€€AllÏdecrees€must€be€the€concurring€result€ofÏallegations€justified€by€proof,€and€proofÏjustified€by€allegations.€€A€decree€based€onÏpleadings€without€proof,€will€be€reversed€onÏappeal,€but€will€be€good€against€collateralÏattack.€€A€decree€based€on€proof,€withoutÏpleadings,€will€not€only€be€reversed€on€appeal,Ïbut€will€also€yield€to€a€collateral€attackÏbecause€such€a€decree€is€òòcoramóó€òònonóó€òòjudiceóó,€andÏabsolutely€void.ÌÌÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àIn€the€case€of€ò òCardwell€v.€Hackettó ó,€579€S.W.2d€186Ï(Tenn.App.1978)€the€plaintiff€sued€the€defendant€for€impliedÏwarranty€of€a€mobile€home€purchased€by€the€plaintiff€from€theÏdefendant.€€Upon€the€trial,€the€judge€rendered€a€judgment€forÏthe€return€of€the€purchase€price€of€the€mobile€home€to€theÏpurchaser€by€the€defendant€and€a€return€of€the€mobile€home€toÏthe€defendant.€€In€reversing€the€judgment€on€appeal,€this€courtÏsaid:€€"Thus,€his€judgment€is€a€rescission€of€the€contract€andÏan€effort€to€restore€the€parties€to€status€quo.€€It€seems€to€usÏthat€this€is€error...because€the€pleadings€do€not€encompass€aÏsuit€for€rescission."€€òòId.óó€191.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€unreported€case€of€ò òSouthern€College€ofó óÏò òOptometry€v.€Tennessee€Academy€of€Ophthalmology,€Inc.,Íetó ó€ò òal.ó ó,€1989€WL€105635€(Tenn.App.1989),€the€trial€court€grantedÏinjunctive€relief€which€had€not€been€asked€for€in€the€pleadings.€ÏIn€reversing€the€trial€court€on€appeal,€this€court€said,€asÏpertinent:€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àUnder€the€facts€of€the€case€at€bar,€we€find€thatÏthe€failure€of€SCO€[the€plaintiff]€to€specificallyÏplead€the€injunctive€relief€granted€resulted€in€TAO'sÏand€Hiatt's€[defendants]€being€denied€the€opportunityÏsufficiently€to€defend€against€its€being€granted.€€TheÏproof€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€allow€theÏinjunction€granted€by€the€trial€court.€€The€orderÏgranting€permanent€injunctive€relief€is€accordinglyÏreversed€and€the€matter€is€dismissed.ÌÌÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ e ÒÓÓà àà àIn€the€case€of€ò òFidelity„Phenix€Fire€Ins.€Co.€ofÏNew€York€v.ó ó€ò òJackson,€et€al.ó ó,€181€Tenn.€453,€181€S.W.2d€625,Ï629€(1944),€our€supreme€court€said:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓNo€rule€is€better€settled€than€that€both€allegationsÏand€proof€are€essential€to€a€decree€or€judgment€andÏthat€there€can€be€no€valid€decree€unless€the€matter€onÏwhich€the€decree€is€rested€is€plainly€within€the€scopeÏof€the€pleadings.ÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒThe€court€also€quoted€with€approval:ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  Ò"In€order€to€give€a€judgment€the€merit€and€finality€ofÏan€adjudication€between€the€parties,€it€must€beÏresponsive€not€only€to€the€proof€but€to€the€issuesÏtendered€by€the€pleadings,€because€pleadings€are€theÏvery€foundation€of€judgments€and€decrees.€€A€judgmentÏwill€be€void€which€is€a€departure€from€the€pleadings,Ïand€based€upon€a€case€not€averred€therein,€since€ifÏallowed€to€stand€it€would€be€altogether€arbitrary€andÏunjust€and€conclude€a€point€upon€which€the€parties€hadÏnot€been€heard....Therefore,€the€rule€is€firmlyÏestablished€that€irrespective€of€what€may€be€proved€aÏcourt€cannot€decree€to€any€plaintiff€more€than€heÏclaims€in€his€bill€or€other€pleadings."ÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒòòId.óó€629.€òòAlsoóó€òòseeóó€ò òJohn€J.€Heirigs€Const.€Co.€v.€Exideó ó,€òòetóóÏòòal.óó,€ÌÌ709€S.W.2d€604€(Tenn.App.1986).ÌÌÌÌÒ Ü ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àSince€the€first€two€issues€presented€by€the€Appellants€areÏcontrolling,€the€remaining€issues€are€pretermitted.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€insofar€as€it€orders€theÏDefendants€to€either€construct€a€sub„surface€sewage€disposal€systemÏor€refund€Plaintiffs'€purchase€price,€mortgage€payments,€andÏexpenses,€and€for€Roberts€to€hold€Fraziers€harmless€from€theÏjudgment,€is€reversed.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversedÏin€part.€€The€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€Appellees€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€a€decree€inÏkeeping€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sr.J.ÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:€ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.€ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÒ ' ÒÒ X Ò€€€€€€€€€