WPC # VUNa % 0(w@UP 4m  0l 0D 0J@ 0T 0^ < 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u B% 0dBU>U6B)DCC AMU* D3 \?v~ 0@vY AO,{ 0DA D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EU  D D D Ӏ&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular^!l3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  l#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) dP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd-&C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d##  ((   YYY FILED(X January14,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk 'dxd R !#d##   $       $$ NashvilleHousingAuth.v.Cohen ,541S.W.2d947(Tenn.1976); StateofTennesseev.Parkes ,557S.W.2d504(Tenn.App.1977).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . #  P \RA'\$\RA'\7XXdd7 @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEECITYOFJOHNSONCITY,  )C/ANO.03A019606CV00181TENNESSEE,    )WASHINGTONCOUNTYLAWCOURTR')&A1-j|`  `@R      )      ) PlaintiffAppellant, )      )      )      )v.      )      )      )      )OUTDOORWEST,INC.OF  )TENNESSEE,    )      )      )HONORABLETHOMASJ.SEELEY,JR. DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGE#@  OPINIONONPETITIONTOREHEAR$$X  Theappelleehasfiledapetitionforrehearing.Inthepetition,theappelleecontendsthatouropinion failedtoproperlyconsidertheevidenceandthespecificsofthetrialjudgesrulingconcerningthetestimonyofWilliamMiller,oneoftheexpertswhotestifiedonmarketvalue.WhileconcedinginitspetitionthatMillertestifiedthat ifcanceledtheleasewouldbeworth$4,600",theappelleepointsout,andweagree,thatMillerdidnotadopt$4,600ashisopinionofvalue;however,wedisagreewithappelleesopinionregardingthesignificanceofthislatterfact.Theappelleeconcludes,asdidthetrialjudge,thatthejurywasproperlyinstructedthatitcouldnotreturnaverdictforlessthan$59,500,thevaluethatwasadoptedbyMillerashisopinionofvalue,andthelowestopinionofvalueadoptedbyeitheroftheexpertwitnesses.Appelleecontendsthatwewerewrongwhenweheldthatthetrialjudgecommittedreversibleerrorwhenheplacedalowerlimitof$59,500onthejurysverdict.Werespectfullydisagree.  Theappelleespositionincorrectlyassumesthatajuryislimitedtotherangeofvaluesexpresslyadoptedbythewitnessesastheiropinionsofvalue.Thisistoorestrictive.Morecorrectlystated,ajuryislimitedtotherangeofmarketvaluesestablishedbythecompetentproof,includingtheimpactofallrelevantfactorsthosetendingtohaveadownwardeffectonvalueaswellasthosetendingtoenhancevalue,asofthedateoftaking.Inthiscase,thedownwardfactorsincludedtheownersrighttocancel.Theevidenceisclearthatthevalueoftheleasehold,assuminganexerciseoftherighttocancel,was$4,600asofthedateoftaking.Theevidenceestablishedthisasapossiblevalue,regardlessofwhetheranexpertactuallyadopteditashisopinionofvalue.  Ajuryisentitledtoconsiderallrelevantevidence,i.e.,any evidencehavinganytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence.Rule401,Tenn.R.Evid.Amongotherthings,thejuryinthiscasecouldconsiderthefollowingvalueimpactingfactsandinferences:(1)thattheownerofthefeehadtherighttocanceltheleaseonsixmonthsnotice;(2)thattheownerhadnotpreviouslyshownaninclinationtodoso,asevidencedbythefactthattheleasehadbeenrenewedtwice;(3)thatitwasreasonabletoassumethattheownerwouldnotexercisehisrightofcancellationsincethearrangementwasapparentlyprofitabletohim,andthepropertyspotentialuseswerelimitedbyitssize;and(4)th%  attheleasehadbeenrenewedtwice,afactsupportingtheexpertDavidRikardshigheropinionofvalue,whichwasbasedontheremainingtermplusaprojectedtenyearrenewal.Allofthetestimonywithrespecttothesefactswasrelevantonthequestionoffairmarketvalue.Thejurycouldconsidertheeffect,ifany,thateachofthesefactors [had]alreadyhaduponthefairmarketvalueofthepropertyonthedateoftaking. NashvilleHousingAuth.v.Cohen ,541S.W.2d947,952(Tenn.1976).  Ifajurycanconsiderevidence,itmustbepermittedtoactonthatevidence,ifitsodesires.Inthiscase,thejurywaspermittedbythetrialcourtschargetofullyconsiderandactuponalloftherelevantevidenceexcepttheownersrighttocancelthelease.Whenthetrialjudgeplaceda floorof$59,500onthevaluethejurycouldconsider,heineffecttoldthejurythatitcouldnotconsider,onthelowside,anyfactorthatwascontrarytoorinconsistentwiththefactualbasisofMillersopinionof$59,500.ThatopinionwasthemonetaryresultofMillersmathematicalcalculationofpresentvalue,i.e.,the streamofnetadvertisingrevenuesduefortheremainingtermoftheleaseatthetimeoftaking,reducedtopresentvaluebyapplyinganappropriatediscountrate.Needlesstosay,acancellationoftheleaseisinconsistentwithanincome streamfortheremainingterm.Hence,whilethejurywastoldbythetrialjudgethatitcouldconsidertheownersrighttocancel,itisclearthatitcouldnotactuponthatinstructionbecausethetrialjudgetoldthejury,ineffect,thatitcouldnotfactortherighttocancelintoitscalculationofvalueiftodosowouldreduceitsawardbelow$59,500.Thiswaserrorandonethatwasclearlyprejudicialinnature.Again,wewouldemphasize,ifajurycanlegitimatelyconsiderevidence,itmustbepermittedtofactorthatevidenceintoitsverdict,ifthatiswhatitchoosestodo.  Theerrorinthiscasewasinthetrialcourtssuggestiontothejuryofspecificamountsasarange.Thesuggestiononthelowsidewasclearlyprejudicial,becausetherewasproofofalowervalue$4,600intheeventofcancellation.Itwasforthejurytodecidewhetherandtowhatextenttherighttocancelaffectedtheleasesvalueatthetimeoftaking.Thepatterninstruction,withnomentionofspecificvalues,istheappropriateinstructiononthesubjectathand.SeeT.P.I.Civil11.30.  Wehaveconsideredthecases +   ׀citedinthepetitionforrehearing.Wefindnothinginthoseauthoritiesatoddswithourholdinginthiscase.  ThepetitionforrehearingisDENIEDattheappelleescosts.  ITISSOORDERED.  ENTER:       _________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_________________________HerschelP.Franks,J._________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.#