ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 0l8 0D¤ è 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX 0dÍ U *1B)[DC„ AMÇü,v~<vÓº B D3ª 0@Ý AOÆl 0D2 D/v B¥˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - äDåDæDçUèUéDêTëDìÓ€öDÒ Ô3|xö((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌDecember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€oversight€is€more€surprising€considering€that€the€plaintiff€in€that€case€is€the€defendantÏin€the€case€at€bar.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€‡–XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌCHARLES€G.€KEY,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CH„00219ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€Chancery̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€$%#A1-j|‘²` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94„3250„IIÌEDWIN€B.€œRASKIN›€COMPANY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€œHOBBS›€LYLE,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌGEORGE€E.€œCOPPLE›,€JR.ÌSuite€218Ì172€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌDAVID€J.€WHITE,€JR.ÌWHITE€&€œREASOR›Ì3305€West€End€AvenueÌNashville,€Tennessee€37203Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌLEWIS,€J.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€!„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€!XÔÌÌà àà àThe€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€a€lease€entered€into€by€the€sameÏparties€for€a€œsubsequent€term›€is€a€renewal€of€the€original€lease,€thereby€entitlingÏthe€plaintiff€to€a€real€estate€commission.€€The€chancellor€held€that€the€new€leaseÏwas€not€a€renewal€of€the€old€one.€€We€œaffirm€that€decision€but€modify€theÏchancellorððs€order€and€delete€the€judgment€for€the€plaintiff€for€a€part€of€theÏcommission€earned€during€the€first€renewal€period.›ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àThomas€G.€Key€started€working€as€an€affiliate€real€estate€broker€withÏthe€Edwin€B.€Raskin€Company€in€1983.€€In€1985€Mr.€Key€procured€St.€ThomasÏHospital€as€a€tenant€for€a€building€owned€by€one€of€Raskinððs€clients.€€The€originalÏlease€was€for€a€five€year€term€œwith€options›€to€renew€for€three€additional€three€yearÏœterms.€€The›€rent€œfor€the€subsequent€terms€was€to›€be€computed€at€the€prevailingÏmarket€rate.€€The€œlease€provided€that›€during€the€renewal€periods€ð ðall€terms,Ïcovenants€and€conditions€of€the€Lease€shall€continue€in€full€force€and€effect.ðð€€TheÏoptions€were€to€be€exercised€by€written€notice€to€the€lessor€at€least€120€days€priorÏto€the€expiration€of€the€lease€term.ÌÌà àà àWhen€the€initial€lease€period€expired€in€1990,€Mr.€Key€was€no€longerÏaffiliated€with€œRaskin,›€and€St.€Thomas€Hospital€did€not€renew€the€lease€by€givingÏnotice€120€days€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€lease€term.€€Neither€did€theyÏnegotiate€for€a€rental€payment€based€on€the€prevailing€market€rate.€€Instead,€St.ÏThomas€insisted€on€a€new€base€rent€and€the€replacement€of€the€rental€adjustmentÏprovision€in€the€1985€œlease,€which€had€cost€it€between€$50,000€and€$75,000Ïeach€year,€with›€a€provision€calling€for€rent€adjustments€based€on€the€consumerÏprice€index.ÌÌà àà àRaskin€stopped€paying€Mr.€Key€any€commissions€on€the€new€rentalÏpayments.€€œMr.›€Key€asked€for€an€explanation,€œand€Raskinððs›€president€replied€thatÏhe€did€not€think€the€new€lease€was€a€œrenewal.€€When›€Mr.€Key€pressed€the€pointÍRaskin€paid€the€commission€(less€a€30%€service€charge€unilaterally€imposed€byÏRaskin)€until€the€new€lease€expired€in€1993.€€Raskinððs€president€testified€that€theÏcommissions€were€paid€to€avoid€an€unpleasant€situation.ÌÌà àà àIn€1993€the€parties€again€renegotiated€the€terms€of€the€leaseÏpayments.€€this€time€they€deleted€the€rental€adjustment€provision€altogether,Ïproviding€for€a€flat€base€rent€œthat€yielded›€about€$10,000€less€annually€to€theÏœlessor€than€the€prior€base€rent.›ÌÌà àà àœRaskin›€œagain€stopped›€paying€Mr.€Key€any€œcommissions,›€and€thisÏaction€resulted.€€The€chancellor€held€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€aÏcommission€on€the€1993€lease,€but€was€entitled€to€recover€the€30%€Raskin€hadÏwithheld€in€the€1990„93€lease.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€chancellor€found€that€there€was€no€proof€that€the€1990€leaseÏwas€œrenegotiated›€to€avoid€paying€Mr.€Key€his€commission.€€We€concur€in€thatÏassessment€of€the€proof;€this€dispute€is,€therefore,€reduced€to€a€question€ofÏwhether€the€chancellor€was€correct€in€concluding€that€the€1990€and€1993Ïamendments€deviated€so€significantly€from€the€original€lease€that€they€were€notÏrenewals€but€an€entirely€new€lease.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Key€argues€that€any€extension€of€the€lease€involving€the€sameÏparties€and€the€same€premises€is€a€renewal€under€the€terms€of€his€agreementÏwith€Raskin.€€He€does€not€cite€any€authority€for€this€position,€but€asserts€that€itÏshould€be€adopted€as€a€general€proposition.€€On€the€other€hand,€Raskin€argues,Ïalso€without€citation€of€authority,€that€a€broker€is€entitled€to€a€commission€on€theÏlease€renewal€òòonlyóó€if€the€renewal€is€in€accordance€with€the€renewal€provisions€inÏthe€original€lease.€€In€the€instant€case€that€would€require€a€strict€compliance€withÏthe€120€day€notice€provision€and€an€application€of€prevailing€market€rates.ÌÌà àà àBoth€parties€overlook€the€leading€case€in€Tennessee€on€theÏquestion€of€what€constitutes€a€renewal€of€a€lease€for€purposes€of€decidingÏwhether€a€œreal›€estate€commission€is€due.€€In€òòEdwin€B.€Raskin€Co.€v.€Doric€œBldg›.ÏCo.óó,€821€S.W.2d€948€€œ(Tenn.›€App.€1991)× ƒ& ××  ×€this€court€said,€ð ðAlthough€a€renewal€canÏtake€the€form€of€a€new€lease,€both€the€fact€that€the€original€lease€provides€for€theÏpossibility€of€a€renewal€and€the€fact€that€a€new€lease€is€entered€into€between€theÏsame€parties€for€the€same€premises€do€not€make€the€subsequent€lease€a€renewalÏof€the€former€lease€if€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€new€lease€confer€any€greaterÏrights€or€obligations€on€the€parties€.€.€.€.ðð€€821€S.W.2d€at€951.€€The€court€went€on€toÏsay€that€the€word€œð ðrenewal›œðð›€had€taken€on€the€same€meaning€as€an€ð ðextensionððÍand€that€an€extension€arises€out€of€the€mutual€intent€of€the€landlord€and€tenant€toÏcontinue€their€relationship€subject€to€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€originalÏlease.€€Finding€that€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€original€lease€were€ð ðvastlyÏdifferentðð€from€those€in€the€later€lease,€the€court€held€that€the€later€lease€was€not€aÏrenewal€or€extension€of€the€original€one.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€we€find€that€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€œsubsequent€›Ïlease,€while€not€vastly€different,€are€substantially€different€from€the€terms€andÏconditions€of€the€original€lease.€€The€parties€went€through€a€period€of€intenseÏnegotiations€in€order€to€arrive€at€a€new€lease€in€1990€and€again€in€1993.€€Mr.€KeyÏwas€not€around€to€assist€in€those€negotiations.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€theÏchancellorððs€conclusion€that€he€is€not€entitled€to€a€commission€on€the€1993€lease.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àRaskin€asserts€on€appeal€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€œawarding›€Mr.ÏKey€a€judgment€for€the€30%€withheld€from€the€commission€paid€during€the€1990„93€period.€€We€agree,€because€the€award€assumes€that€Mr.€Key€was€entitled€to€aÏcommission€during€that€period.€€If€we€are€correct€in€our€conclusion€that€the€1990Ïlease€was€not€a€renewal€or€extension€of€the€original€lease,€Raskin€was€notÏobligated€to€pay€him€anything€during€the€1990„93€period.€€Therefore,€theÏpayments€made€during€this€period€were€voluntary€payments,€made€to€avoidÍcontroversy.€€Withholding€30%€of€something€Raskin€was€not€obligated€to€payÏdoes€not€create€an€enforceable€claim€on€the€part€of€Mr.€Key.€€The€chancellorððsÏorder€should€be€modified€to€delete€the€judgment€to€Mr.€Key€for€any€underpaymentÏduring€the€1990„93€lease.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€below€is€modified€as€indicated€herein.€€In€all€otherÏrespects€the€judgment€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedings€that€may€becomeÏnecessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌœCONCUR:›Ìœ›ÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE̛̜Ñ  Ñœà@ àIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌCHARLES€G.€KEY,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CH„00219ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94„3250„IIÌEDWIN€B.€RASKIN€COMPANY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àœ)ÌÌ›Ìà@ àò òòòÔ€!¼ÔJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tó óóóÔ€!XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€and€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€€UponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€decree€of€theÏChancellor€should€be€modified€in€that€the€judgment€awarded€to€Mr.€Key€isÏdeleted.€€In€all€other€respects€the€decree€is€affirmed.€Ìà àà àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€judgment€be€affirmed€asÏmodified.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€forÏthe€enforcement€of€the€decree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà àà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Charles€G.€Key,€Principal,€andÏGeorge€E.€œCopple›,€Jr.,€Surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àà àENTER€_______________________.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€œJUDGE›à àà à