WPC hr`%BWpB{mpz:.BUBI~8,}qә ~#{|B+C2K+ K1vm'!T3G-xyɻaNDqlrc +6ak`y.-@:rn;+QJb=8@*P@?=6NSyp䶺HfbT<\(6l$5!t,8TSl^A|ml(;,T*לj4G 2*'^4ָ1$\}lPx#ԀClearly,theoutcomeofthiscasedependedonthe   resolutionofissuesthathingedonthecredibilityofthewitnesses.ThetrialjudgeobviouslyaccreditedthetestimonyϜ. favorableto. / offeredby/ theplaintiffs0 theoryofthecase0 1 andresolvedtheseissuesintheirfavor1 .Havingfoundno clear,concreteandconvincingevidencetothecontrary,X1XXX1weare h  innopositiontoreversethe#X1XXX1@#decisionofthelowercourt. `   X1XXX1TennesseeValleyKaolinCorp. ,526S.W.2dat490.   @tt)IV   ` Russellalsoadvancesothertheoriesonthisappeal.ShecontendsthattheplaintiffscauseofactionisbarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationssetforthatT.C.A.665208(Supp.1998).Thatsection,whichispartoftheResidentialPropertyDisclosuresAct,T.C.A.665201,etseq.(Supp. h# 1998),providesinpertinentpartthat  8 ` [a]nyactionbroughtunderthissubsectionshallbecommencedwithinone(1)yearfromthedatethepurchaserreceivedthedisclosurestatementorthedateofclosing(oroccupancyifaleasesituation),whicheveroccursfirst.... ` `  #X1XXX1A#X1XXX1T.C.A.665208(a)(1)(Supp.1998). /$,    ` However,regardlessofwhetherthisactionwasfiledwithintheabovelimitationsperiod,weagreewiththeplaintiffsassertionthattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsisinsteadfoundatT.C.A.#X1XXX1D#X1XXX1#X1XXX1]F#X1XXX1Ԁ283105(1)(Supp.1998).That `7-6 sectionprovides,amongotherthings,thatactionsforinjuries 9.8 torealpropertyshallbecommencedwithinthreeyearsoftheaccrualofthecauseofaction.Wealsoagreewiththeplaintiffsassertionthat,althoughthedisclosurestatementwasrelieduponasevidenceofRussellsmisrepresentation2 s2 ,theapplicableportionoftheircomplaintwasbaseduponcommonlawfraudandmisrepresentation.#X1XXX1F#X1XXX1ԀWehavepreviouslyheldthatwhere H  thegravamenofthecomplaintisaclaimfordamagestorealpropertyasisthecaseherethethreeyearlimitationsperiodsetforthinT.C.A.#X1XXX1H#X1XXX1#X1XXX1I#X1XXX1Ԁ283105(1)#X1XXX1(J#X1XXX1Ԁ3 will3 control4 s4 . Prescottv. @  Adams ,627S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.App.1981);#X1XXX1vJ#X1XXX1seealso Swaugerv. X Haury&SmithContractors ,512S.W.2d261,26263(Tenn.1974).   Intheinstantcase,itisclearthatthecomplaintwasfiledwellwithintheapplicablelimitationsperiod.SeeT.C.A.#X1XXX19K#X1XXX1#X1XXX1L#X1XXX1Ԁ28 @ 3105(1)#X1XXX1L#X1XXX1.#X1XXX1,M#X1XXX1ԀAccordingly,wefindthisissuetobewithoutmerit. P     ` Finally,Russellassertsintheargumentsectionofherbriefthattheplaintiffs didnotcometocourtwithcleanhands.Therecord,however,containsnosupportwhatsoeverforthistheory,anditisthereforefoundtobewithoutmerit.@*V   ` Thedecisionofthetrialcourt#X1XXX1oM#isaffirmed.Costson 8/$, appealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothe  0&. trialcourtforenforcementofthejudgmentandthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.