WPC% # t U: % 0 w@ 4   #) 0J1 0T{ 0^ 0h- 0r 0| 0 0  1u 0dU*rB)DC B AM%rv~ D3Qv 0@W! AO!! 0D" D/" B# 0?<# 0D{%HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,cAZ"Arial RegularX(~$  HTR[A' LegalLh (Avery 4167 Post CardA' Legalh (Avery 4167 Post CardTXmXXX73XXdXXd7 pDqrsDtuPvPwxyӀڃ"3|xH2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d-#C << G  !  #d#!    H \RA'\#d#  !   YYY FILED!X August28,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.!AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#!    H \RA'\#d#  $       TheopinionwasapparentlybasedonthefactthatMrs.Goddarddidnotsignthecontract.TherealestatewasownedbyRoyW.Goddardseparately,byinheritance;in1977,dowerandcurtesyestateswereabolished,andMrs.Goddardthereforehadnoalienableinterestintheproperty.Hersignaturewasnotrequiredanditsabsenceclearlydidnotvitiatethecontract.Thispoint,however,isnotcrucial.  !#d#!    H \RA'\#d#  $       AnorallistingcontractisrecognizedinTennessee,butmustbeprovedbyclearandconvincingevidence.Parksv.Morris,914S.W.2d545(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h$$$$'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd((37$ ~!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   ! . !    H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#     R%&#A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE   HERBERTA.JENKINS,d/b/a  ) BLOUNTCHANCERYHERBJENKINSREALTY   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant   ) NO.03A019704CH00139      )v.      )   X       ) HON.CHESTERS.RAINWATER,JR.ROYW.GODDARDandwife,  ) CHANCELLOR%    H FRANCESH.GODDARD,  )      ) Defendants/Appellees  )      ) AFFIRMEDL.LeeKull,Maryville,forAppellantArthurB.GoddardandRobertN.Goddard,Maryville,forAppellees @ OPINION        INMAN,SeniorJudge Thisisanactiontorecoverarealestatecommission.Theplaintiffbroker[hereafterbroker]allegedthattheownersofthepropertyorallylistedtheirpropertywithhim,thatheprocuredabuyerwhocontractedtopurchasetheproperty,andbecauseofhiseffortsheisentitledtoacommission.Thedefendantsallegedthecontractwasmutuallyabandoned,andthatthereaftertheyhadnocontractwiththebroker.TheChancellorfoundthatanallegedorallistingwasnotprovedbytherequiredstandardofclearandcogentevidence.Thebrokerappeals,insistingthatunderthepreponderantfactsheisentitledtoacommission. Abackgrounddiscussionisnecessaryforaperspectiveofthiscase.InearlyϜ1994,RoyW.Goddardorallylistedhis45acretractoflandwiththebroker,whowastoreceiveafivepercentcommissionifheprocuredapurchaser.ThebrokersoonshowedthepropertytoGaddisandDietrich,allofwhommetwithGoddardontheproperty.Anagreementwasreached,whichwasreducedtowritingandsignedbyallparties.AnAgencyDisclosureStatementwasexecutedbyGoddardwhereinheacknowledgedthatthebrokerwashisagent. Withindays,thebrokerreceivedaletterfromGoddardsattorney,statingthatthecontractwasinvalid '   כandthatthecontractshouldincludeanexchangeoflikekindpropertyundertheInternalRevenueCode.Ameetingwasheldwithallpartiesinattendancewhichwasproductiveofnoaffirmativeresult,andthematterthereafterlanguished.InJulyandAugust1994,thebrokerreturnedtheearnestmoneytoGaddisandDietrich,butGaddisremainedinterestedinpurchasingtheproperty,whichheaccomplishedinMay1995,aboutoneyearaftertheoriginalcontractwasabandoned. GaddistestifiedthatafterGoddardreturnedhisearnestmoneyheconsideredthecontractatanendandthereafterhadnoinvestmentfundsuntilJuly1995whenhesoldawarehouseandusedtheproceedstopurchaseGoddardsproperty. Becausethebrokeressentiallypitcheshiscaseuponthetheorythatthedefendantandthepurchaserconspiredtodefeathiscommission,wereproducerelevantportionsofthedefendantstestimony:Q:8 WhendidyoufirsttalktoMr.andMrs.Gaddisaboutenteringintoadifferentcontract?A:8 Imnotsure.The[y]wasinterested,theyusedtotaketheirdogsdownthereandrunontheplace,andtheystayedinterestedinitallthetime.Andwedecidedithadbeenoverayear,thatitoughttobeoutbythen.ItwassupposedtohavebeenconcludedbyJunethe15th,theyweresupposedtopayme.Q:8 ThecontractthattheGoddardfirmpreparedisdatedMay9th,1995.WhendidyoufirsttalktotheGaddisesaboutenteringintoanewcontract?A:8 Well,wetalkedseveraltimes.Ifwecouldgetacontractwecouldlivewith,well,wewouldgoaheadanddoit.Q:8 Whendidyoufirsttalktothemaboutenteringintoanewcontract?A:8 Imnotsure,theyvebeenwell,theyvecomedowntherealot,theyregoodfriendsofours.Q:8 DidyoutalktotheGoddardfirminthatsummerof94?A:8 No,wewaiteduntilwethoughtthecontractwasout......Q:8 Didhe(Gaddis)everexpresstoyouthathewasinahurrytobuythisproperty?A:8 No.Hejusttoldmehewanteditsometime.Hesaidhecouldwaitayearortwo,whatever.Q:8 Untilthiscontractwasntanygood.A:8 Yeah.Q:8 Whoseideawasittodothenewcontract?A:8 Well,Gaddissaidhebelievedwecouldworkuponethatwecouldlivewith.Q:8 Whoseideawasittodothenewcontract?A:8 Webothtalkedaboutit,Idontknowwhobroughtitupfirst.Hesaid, Ithinkifwecangetanewcontract,wecandobusiness.Q:8 Well,thiswasforyourbenefit,though,wasntit?A:8 Well,his,too.Hewaswantingit......Q:8 ItakeitMr.Gaddisnevertoldyouhedidntwantthepropertyanymore.A:8 No,heneverdidtellmehedidntwantit. Ourreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise,Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d). TheChancellorfoundthatthesalescontractwasabandoned.Inlightofthefactthattheearnestmoneywasreturnedbythebrokerattheinstanceoftheparties,andthatthey,aswellasthebroker,obviouslyconsideredthecontracttobedefunct,weareunabletofindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthisfinding.Itthenbecomesnecessaryforthebrokertoprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethathehadanorallistingagreementafterthewrittencontractwasabandoned,Parksv.Morris,914S.W.2d545(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). TheChancellorfoundfromallthecircumstancesincludingthecrucialissueofcredibilitythatthebrokerfailedtoprovealistingagreementbyclearandconvincingevidence.EventhoughGaddisremainedinterestedinpurchasingtheproperty(andmorethanoneyearlaterdidso),andheandthedefendantdiscussedthestatusofthebroker,thereisnosatisfactoryproofthatthebrokerhadalistingagreementwiththedefendant. ThefactthatGaddiseventuallypurchasedpropertyisnotdispositiveoftheissue.Theplaintiffmustshowthatthepropertywaslistedwithhim,or,failingthat,thatthedefendantagreedtopayhimacommissioninsomeamount.Thereisnoproofofthis,muchlessclearandconvincingproof. TheappelleesrelyonPacesetterPropertiesv.Hardaway,635S.W.2d382(Tenn.Ct.App.1981)asauthorityfortheirargumentthattheydidnotengageinbadfaithinrenewingnegotiationswithGaddis. InHardaway,theownerallowedabrokertoattempttofindatenant.Thebrokerintroducedaprospectivetenant,Stein,totheownerwhobegannegotiationswithhim.Thereafter,thebrokernotifiedtheownerthatSteinrefusedatenyeartermandconsideredtherentexcessive. Steinlostinterestinthepropertyandbeganasearchinothercitiesforappropriatespace.Hewasunsuccessfulandreapproachedtheownerwho,sixmonthslater,contractedwithSteintotheexclusionofthebroker.Oneoftheissueswaswhethertheownerinterruptedthenegotiationsconductedbythebrokerwiththeintenttodelaythesalesoastoavoidpaymentofacommission.Weheldthattherewasasufficientbreakoffofnegotiationsandsufficientlapseoftimebeforerenewalofnegotiationstopreventtheinitialeffortofthebrokerfrombeingtheprocuringcauseofthelease,andthattherewasnoevidenceoffraud. Werecognizethesalutaryprinciplethatsharppracticemustnotbeallowedtodefeatthecommissionofabrokerwhohasbroughtasellerbuyertogetherpursuanttocontract. (   ׀See,Robinsonv.KemmonsWilsonRealtyCo.,293S.W.2d754(Tenn.Ct.App.1956);Thomasv.Million,250S.W.2d111(Tenn.Ct.App.1952). Butthebrokerfailedtoproveacontract,andwethinkPacesettercontrols.Thejudgmentisthereforeaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellant.       ___________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:________________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,Judge%  ________________________________DonT.McMurray,Judge̜