WPCQ Srlg6ǺTq UdD8o9Y)>[>tPp%Do)|Ɖټ7;D>R+u~pmZ WU ~˵e C I0gHV~ڇ&X`q{`lCJN|,y Ox$<#.75<RZEV(dRn=]7FAZط@@Xk]AQsKXS_KR Iv~jHdc]ra}tqKx9*)AI(hF0׍}>5:Q 8^S"U7vqTq#>ɺ昬za F{8‚h [އxfOaQٺ_4IMaXoحbG`ĄpC?y]# UN! %o 0Yu^ w@4 . = m? 0V V - UNM U<  N  0DrYUNYUNGU: AQ# 0D 0D- 0Dqq D/ B D3 B4HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1y/$Gu FXX-Bi& 01E23456E78e9Ӏcl&q3|xBU((2)$ y/!G*OGXX-    >WGG*O     0   HOBBSMCRCFWartburgWALKUPKUSSMANN BPRCordellMcWherter Crim CrumKNOBLEKILCREASEENKEMAKnobleSolomanRaineyStansell APAC J.M.HumphriesCookevilleBellamy WinnBONNYMAN ##Xd#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular\  `$Times NewRoman   )$G*OGXX- @ @>WGG*O     1    _ԀSincethismatterwasdecidedonamotionforsummaryjudgment,there  isnotrialtranscript.Nodepositiontranscriptsareavailable,andnostatementofevidencewasapprovedbythetrialcourt.Allfactualinformationavailabletothiscourtisfoundinthepleadingsandinaffidavitssubmittedinrelationtothe_dispositive_Ԁmotionsfiledbybothparties.(#$  0   O  f$GbFXX- @ @} FGb     2    _ԀTheSellermaintainsthosefactswerepartiallyestablishedbyBuyers  failuretodenysomerequestsforadmission.WhetherallrequestsweretimelydeniedandtheeffectoftheBuyersresponsesaredisputed.However,sincewefinditunnecessarytolookbeyondtheplainlanguageofthecontract,thosedisputesareimmaterial.   f$GbFXX- @ @} FGb     1    _ԀSincethismatterwasdecidedonamotionforsummaryjudgment,there  isnotrialtranscript.Nodepositiontranscriptsareavailable,andnostatementofevidencewasapprovedbythetrialcourt.Allfactualinformationavailabletothiscourtisfoundinthepleadingsandinaffidavitssubmittedinrelationtothe_dispositive_Ԁmotionsfiledbybothparties.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular O  f$GbFXX- @ @} FGb     2    _ԀTheSellermaintainsthosefactswerepartiallyestablishedbyBuyers  failuretodenysomerequestsforadmission.WhetherallrequestsweretimelydeniedandtheeffectoftheBuyersresponsesaredisputed.However,sincewefinditunnecessarytolookbeyondtheplainlanguageofthecontract,thosedisputesareimmaterial.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular ""  XM XXXB  XXM   Ad FILEDXM X B   March12,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd\\\\'dxd d y/!G*OGXX-  _  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T >WGG*O9r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r9@& &  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE DAVIDG.KNOBLE,JR.and@.) < SUZANNEE.KNOBLE@.)  R @.) Plaintiffs/Appellees,@.) . ~ @.)0  AppealNo.D T$T$ @.)0  01A019803CH00153Z T$T$ VS.@.)0  p T$T$ @.)0  DavidsonChancery T$T$ @.)0  No.97890I T$T$ JOSEPHM.TAYLOR,@.)   @.) Defendant/Appellant.@.) . @  APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFDAVIDSON  Z @ COUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE @e e THE_HONORABLE0IR010V012WIN24H.42KILCREASE23,32JR.265J567,CHANCELLOR7_ԈJAMESD.KAY,_JR._JOHNB._ENKEMA_Suite340M,WashingtonSquareTwoNashville,Tennessee37201AttorneysforPlaintiffs/AppelleesPAULR._WHITE_ROBERTW._RUTHERFORD_Rutherford,DeMarco,White&SolomanSuite400,WashingtonSquare214SecondAvenueNorthNashville,TN37201AttorneysforDefendant/Appellant@$ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED 0f+(    0     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE T3.+ CONCUR:KOCH,J.CAIN,J.  72/    7xXXdGGd7    @XX+>W OPINION#>W[ # , >WԈ  #>W  ,է #Y - Thisappealinvolvesadisputeoveracontractforthesaleofrealproperty M inDavidsonCounty.TheSellerappealsfromatrialcourtdecisiongrantingsummaryjudgmenttotheBuyersforspecificperformanceofthecontract.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. ThepartiesenteredintoacontractonNovember22,1996,forahouseandlotinDavidsonCounty,Tennessee.Appellant,Mr.Taylor,wastheSeller,andAppellees,Mr.AndMrs.Knoble,weretheBuyers.Thepartiesexecutedastandardformcontract,butaddedanAddendum,theeffectofwhichisthebasisofthedisputeherein.ThatAddendumstates:Y 8 80 ! !IfBuyersareunabletoassumefirstmortgageheldbyAmericanHomeFunding,Buyerswillsecureotherfinancingwithin60daysofthedateofcontractandclosesalewithinthatperiod.BuyerswillcontinuetopaySeller$554.94permonthuntilsalecloses. 0 0   Themainbodyofthecontractitselfincludedlanguagethat, thesalewillbeclosedonJanuary25,1997,orassoonthereafteraspossible. TheBuyersmovedintothehouseonDecember9,1996,andpaidrent.NoclosingtookplacebyJanuary21,1997orbyJanuary25,1997.AclosingwassetforFebruary21,_1997__,_ԀandtheBuyersexecutedvariousdocumentsatthattime,includingdocumentsnecessarytoassumethemortgagefromAmericanHomeFunding.TheSellerdidnotattendthe closingandtookthepositionthatthecontractwasnolongerineffectsincethesalehadnotclosedonJanuary_21,1997._ Apparently,anumberofconversationstookplacebetweentheBuyersand SellerduringJanuaryandFebruary1997.Thereareanumberoffactualdisputes b4/, abouttheseconversations.8_888 #  1      _ԀHowever,thosedisputedfactsarenotmaterialtothe   determinativeissueinthisappeal. Essentially,thepartiesdisagreeastothemeaningandeffectoftheAddendumquotedabove.TheSellercontendsthattheAddendumwasintendedtosetadatecertain,January21,1997,withinwhich,underanycontingency,thesalewouldclose.Ontheotherhand,theBuyersassertthatthelanguageinthemainbodyofthecontract, thesalewillbeclosedonJanuary25,1997,orassoonthereafteraspossible,controls.TheyfurthersubmitthattheAddendumlanguagereferencing60daysfromthedateofthecontractwasnottriggeredsincetheywerenot unabletoassumefirstmortgageheldbyAmericanHomeFunding. InthislitigationbroughtbyBuyersseekingspecificperformance,theSellermovedforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisthattheBuyershadfailedtoclosethecontractwithinsixty(60)daysofexecutionofthecontract.ByOrderenteredJanuary21,1998,thetrialcourtdeniedtheSellersMotionforSummaryJudgment.TheBuyersthenmovedforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisthattheywerepreparedtocloseassoonaspossibleafterJanuary25,1997.ByOrderenteredFebruary20,1998,thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheBuyers,orderedspecificperformanceoftheContractandawardedattorneysfeesandcosts.ByOrderenteredMarch2,1998,thetrialcourtenteredfinaljudgmentorderingthattheclosingoccurandawarding_attorney__s_Ԁfeesintheamountof$8,253.50. 1,*  SellerdoesnotarguethatBuyersbreachedtheclosingobligationinthemainbodyofthecontract.Inotherwords,hedoesnotassertthatitwaspossiblefortheBuyerstoclosethetransactionsoonerthanFebruary21,1997.Therefore,thisCourtisnotpresentedwithanyissueofwhethertheBuyersbreachedthecontracttermrequiringthemtoclosethesale onJanuary25,1997,orassoonthereafteraspossible. Rather,SellerrestshisentireclaimonanargumentthatheintendedthroughtheAddendumtosetadatecertain,60daysfromtheexecutionofthecontract,January21,1997,fortheclosing.ItishispositionthattheAddendumaccomplishesthatintentand,sincenoclosingoccurredbyJanuary21,_1997__,_ԀthecontractwasnotenforceablebytheBuyersafterthatdate. Thus,theinitialissuetobeaddressedbythisCourtisthemeaningandeffectoftheAddendum.Asnotedabove,thiscasewasdeterminedbythegrantofsummaryjudgment.Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewherenogenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsandthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.Thepurposeofsummaryjudgmentistoresolvecontrollingissuesoflaw.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,216(Tenn. &@"  1993),Bellamyv.FederalExpressCorp.,749S.W.2d31,33(Tenn.1988) )d$" (citationsomitted).Summaryjudgment isanefficientmeanstodisposeofcaseswhoseoutcomedependssolelyontheresolutionoflegalissues.Byrdv.Hall \-(& at216,quotingRollinsv.WinnDixie,780S.W.2d765,767(Tenn.App.1989). /*(  Itiswellsettledthattheinterpretationofawrittenagreementpresentsaquestionoflawandnotoffact.Raineyv.Stansell,836S.W.2d117(Tenn.App. 3/, 1992);APACTennessee,Inc.v.J.M.HumphriesConst.Co.,732S.W.2d601 5<1. (Tenn.App.1986).Ifacontractisplainandunambiguous,themeaningthereof 8`30 isaquestionoflawforthecourt.Warrenv.Metro,955S.W.2d618(Tenn.App.  1997);Pettyv.Sloan,197Tenn.630,277S.W.2d355(1955).Thus,the $ meaningoftheAddendumisanissuetobedeterminedbytheCourt,asamatteroflaw,andisthepropersubjectofasummaryjudgmentmotion. SellersinterpretationoftheAddendumis thatiftheBuyersareunabletoassumethefirstmortgageheldbyAmericanHomeFunding(andbyinferenceclosethesalebysigningthatassumption)thentheywillsecureotherfinancingand,inanyevent,closethesalewithinsixtydaysoftheinitialdateofthecontract.Baseduponthisinterpretation,Sellersubmitshewasentitledtosummaryjudgment.* } Ԁ#}  *%#* } Sellersinterpretation,however,isrebuttedbytheplain D languageoftheAddendumitself.Byitsterms,theAddendumbecameeffectiveonly IfBuyersareunabletoassumefirstmortgageheldbyAmericanHomeFunding.Thisphrasedefinesthesituationorcontingencytowhichtheremainderoftheprovisionapplies.ThisdelineationoftheonespecificsituationinwhichtheAddendumappliesnegatesSellerscontentionthatitappliesinallcontingenciesand inanyevent. Wheninterpretingacontract,courtswillenforcethecontractaswritten,accordingtoitsplainterms.BobPearsallMotors,Inc.v.RegalChrysler ($" Plymouth,Inc.,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975);Warrenv.Metro,955 *(&$ S.W.2d618.WeinterprettheplaintermsoftheAddendumtomeanthatthesixtydayclosingrequirementonlyappliestothesituationwheretheBuyersareunabletoassumetheexistingfirstmortgage.Therightsofthepartiestoacontractaredeterminedbywhattheyhaveputintotheiragreement.Cookeville 83., P.C.v.SoutheasternDataSystem,884S.W.2d458(Tenn.App.1994).#}  *S%#ԀThe P50. provisionincludedbythepartiesintheAddendumdidnotaltertheclosingdateprovisioninthecontractinanysituationotherthanthatdescribed. 942  InadditiontohisargumentbasedontheAddendumslanguage,theSelleralsomaintainsthatthelanguageoftheAddendumandtheentirecontractmustbeinterpretedinlightofhisintent(toestablishadatecertainforclosing)andinlightofcertainfactssurroundingthedraftingoftheAddendum.8888 %  2      ׀Sellersubmits  l thatsummaryjudgmentfortheBuyerswasnotappropriatebecauseoftheexistenceofgenuineandmaterialissuesofdisputedfactwhichheidentifiesas:themeaningofandpurposefortheAddendum. Thecourt,inarrivingattheintentionofthepartiestoacontract,doesnotattempttoascertainthepartiesstateofmindatthetimethecontractwasexecuted,butrathertheirintentionsasactuallyembodiedandexpressedinthecontractaswritten.Raineyv.Stansell,836S.W.2d117(Tenn.App.1992);Petty h v.Sloan,197Tenn.630,277S.W.2d355(1955).Wefindthetermsofthe < Addendumandcontracttobeaplainandunambiguousexpressionofthepartiesintent.Nofurtherexaminationofintentiswarranted.Further,theinterpretationoftheAddendumisaquestionoflaw,notfact,sothemeaningofthatprovisionisnotadisputedfact. Havingdetermined,asamatteroflaw,themeaningoftheAddendum,applicationofthefactswilldetermineitseffect.ThematerialandundisputedfactisthattheBuyerswereabletoassumethefirstmortgageonthehouseheldbyAmericanHomeFundingandwerepreparedtoclosethepurchaseonFebruary21,1997.* } ԀBuyershavesubmittedundisputedprooftheywere,infact, /*( abletoassumethemortgage.Therefore,theAddendum,includingitssixtyday 1,* provision,wasnevertriggered.#}  *1#* }  ThecontractrequiredclosingonJanuary25,1997,orassoonthereafter  aspossible.Asdiscussedabove,SellerhasnotarguedthatitwaspossiblefortheBuyerstoclosebeforeFebruary_21,__1997,_ԀthedatetheBuyersexecuted_documentsinperformanceoftheirobligationtoclosethesale. WefindtheBuyerswereentitledtoenforcethecontractforthepurchase/saleoftherealproperty.Therefore,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtandremandthismatterforanyfurtherproceedingswhichmaybenecessary.CostsaretaxedtotheAppellant. #}  *2#* }   0      8   _______________________________    0      8   PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:____________________________#}  *5#* } WILLIAMC.KOCH,JUDGE  D #}  *H7#* } ____________________________ $h WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE#}  *7#