WPC  jx#N/hLn9LٗA'ٜP0rm@J5~XcU/uo֬ 8%umL;KWXPv{4R:^E  ~?-*a=-G?=;bH'QFXM d t` Lva-V9:/ѱdҊ}˳PrיOTk370D-?S m8%W8ׄ'"= so*^,mmL;1rz=46v4uº F=̀{ݗSFίsֽ "J7D\v`Rm~ X +J˻bg)3Y2 bÈo7_ԍi6sm=7Мebt )V<dA|K58~”F$=`:OzfN E7Z/C,Ps,Ǩ@E[m-Y|=# F UNQ % 0( UF UP UFc wL 4   0 l 0 D3 UFw - UF0UF1hwUF%UFUF!UF?UFG BUF/U:uuuuu D3 0D AOK 0D` D/ B HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<: 9Z .Courier New Regular [  D  D   D  D D Ӏh&3|x   $    1    XTXXXXXTT.C.A.4718101,etseq.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular #  $    2    XTXXXXXTThewarrantycontainedinthepartiessalesagreementprovidesas P  follows: Applicableforaperiodof12monthsfromclosingorpossession,whicheverisearlier,Builderwillwarrant(thedwelling)againststructuraldefects,defectsintheplumbingandelectricalsystemsormalfunctionoftheheatingandcoolingsystems.EntirepropertywhichincludestheDriveway,Landscapingetc.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    5    XfXXXXXfThismotionisnotapartoftherecordonappeal.Itpresumablywas P  deniedbytheCircuitCourt.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular ^  $    7    XfXXXXXfAsindicatedearlier,thedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment P  recitesthatitwasservedontheplaintiffbymailonDecember4,1996;thirtydaysfromthatdatewouldhavebeenJanuary3,1997.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    8    XfXXXXXfTheaffidavitatissuein Fowler concludedwiththefollowing P  statement: UpontheinformationIhave,Ibelievethatallofthe   aforementionedrepresentationsoftheplaintiffsweremadebythemknowingthattheywerefalseandtheywereintendedtomisleadme. Fowler ,575 t $ S.W.2dat498(emphasisin Fowler opinion).TheCourtnotedthatthe 0  affidavitdidnotdivulgethesourcesofthe informationuponwhichtheaffiantbasedhis belief,nordiditdemonstratethattheaffiantwas competenttotestifytothemattersstatedtherein. Id. (quotingRule L 56.06,Tenn.R.Civ.P.).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    9    XfXXXXXfTheaffiantin Keystone statedthathehadpersonalknowledgeofall P  factssetforthinhisaffidavit exceptastomattersindicatedtobeoninformationandbelief,andthosemattersIverilybelievetobetrue. Id.   l at365.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular    !X XXX!  X!X    Ad FILED!  !    July28,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.! !AppellateCourt  Clerk    $    3    XTXXXXXTThepleadingsandjudgmentfromtheoriginallitigationintheTrial P  JusticeCourtarenotapartoftherecordonthisappeal.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular =  $    6     XfXXX X XfThatRuleprovides,inpertinentpart,that [t]hemotion[forsummary P  judgment]shallbeservedatleastthirty(30)daysbeforethetimefixedforthehearing. d<4 9Z .Courier New Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular   $    4    XTXXXXXTAgain,thepleadingsandjudgmentfromthissecondactionintheTrial P  JusticeCourtarenotincludedintherecordbeforeus.'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  P XTXXX7XXdXXd7TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TP   r*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rߛ @| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEHOADAOPHUNG,    h   )C/ANO.03A019811CV00388 T    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )v.   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE X     `     h   )ANDERSONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )RANDALLCASE,    h   ) \     `     h   )HONORABLEJAMESB.SCOTT,JR.,   ` DefendantAppellee.  )JUDGE  ForAppellant    h     ForAppellee 6 BILLYP.SAMS    h     DAVIDL.FLITCROFT   OakRidge,Tennessee h     OakRidge,Tennessee !h @$XXXXT = XXOPINION    =XTX  Ԉ 1J'/  P    P     AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J. ^:09 P    P        ` HoaDaoPhungfiledthisactionseekingtorecoverdamagesforbreachofwarrantyandforviolationsoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct   #  1      ל,arisingoutofherpurchase  X ofaresidencefromthedefendant,RandallCase.Thetrialcourtinitiallygrantedthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentastocertainissues;itsubsequentlygrantedhismotionforsummaryjudgmentastoallremainingissuesraisedbythepleadings.Theplaintiffappeals,contendingthatthetrialcourtsgrantofpartialandthenfullsummaryjudgmentwasinappropriate.Weaffirm.@*I   ` Theproceduralhistoryofthiscaseissomewhatconvoluted.Thecaseitselftracesits rootstowhentheplaintiffbeganexperiencingvariousproblemswiththehousethatshehadpurchasedfromthedefendant.TheplaintiffbroughtanϜactionagainstCase,abuilder,forbreachofexpresswarrantyH  #  2      כ &l" intheAndersonCountyTrialJusticeCourt.Thatactionresultedinajudgmentfortheplaintifffor$250,pluscosts.Noappealwastakenfromthatjudgmentanditwassubsequentlypaid.0  #  3      כ +p!(    ` Shortlythereafter,andpriortotheexpirationofthe12monthwarranty,theplaintifffiledasecondsuitagainstthe 0t&. defendantintheTrialJusticeCourt.Thisactionwasdismissedbythattribunalonthebasisofresjudicata.'  #  4      ׀Theplaintiff   appealedthatdecisiontoCircuitCourtbutsubsequentlytookanonsuit.ShelaterfiledtheinstantactioninCircuitCourt,and,afterobtainingcounsel,substitutedanamendedcomplaintallegingbreachofwarrantyandviolationsoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.   ` Thedefendantmovedforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisofresjudicata.Thedefendantsmotionindicatesthatitwas h servedontheplaintiffbymailonDecember4,1996.OnJanuary9,1997,theCircuitCourtenteredanordergrantingpartialsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendant.Theorderprovidesinpertinentpartasfollows:  8 ` ItappearstotheCourtthatMs.PhunginherDiscoveryDepositionadmittedandtheproofshowsthataseparateactionwasmaintained...inwhichalawsuitwasbroughtbyMs.PhungagainstRandallCase...forcostofworkstocomplete,correctinglandscaping,driveway,andwaterabsorbencyinthebasementofsaidpremiseswhichisthenexusofthecurrentlawsuit.Ajudgmentwasobtainedinthatcauseandwaspaidinfull.Anappealwasnevertakenfromthataction.Noopposingaffidavitswerepresented.Thatactionconstitutesresjudicataastothemattersinthiscasehavingpreviouslybeenlitigatedandsatisfied.Accordingly,somuchofthecomplaintthatrelatestothosemattersisdismissed.... ` `  TheCircuitCourtfurtherorderedthatthecasewouldcontinueontheremainingissues.TheCourtsorderdoesnotstatethedateonwhichthemotionwasargued. 5+4 Ї   ` Somefourandahalfmonthsafterentryoftheorder P  grantingpartialsummaryjudgment,theplaintifffiledaresponsetothedefendantsmotion.TheresponseaskedthatitbeconsideredbytheCircuitCourtintheeventthecourtgranteda MotiontoSetAsideorReconsiderand/ortoClarifyOrderGrantingMotionforPartialSummaryJudgement[sic]thatwasapparentlyfiledbytheplaintiff  #  5      ׀afterentryoftheCircuit d  CourtsJanuary9,1997,order.   ` OnJanuary15,1998,thedefendantfiledanothermotionforsummaryjudgment,assertingthattheonlyissuesremainingpertainedtoallegedproblemswiththegrounddefaultplugs,movementofthekitchenfloor,problemswiththegaragedooropener,anddamagetothedrivewayconcrete.Seekingtonegatetheplaintiffsclaimwithrespecttoeachoftheremainingissues,thedefendantsubmittedhisaffidavit,aswellastheaffidavitsofeightotherswhohadinspectedthesubjectproperty.Eachoftheaffidavitsstatesthattheallegedproblemeitherdoesnotexistorwascausedsolelybytheplaintiffsownactions.Therecorddoesnotreflectthattheplaintifffiledanyresponsetothedefendantsmotionorsubmittedanyaffidavitsorothermaterial.   ` Followingahearingonthemotion,theCircuitCourtenteredanorderonMay22,1998,grantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendantontheissuesofthegaragedooropenerandthegrounddefaultplugs.TheCourtnotedthattheparties 5+4 wereattemptingtoresolvetheissueconcerningthekitchenfloor,andstatedthatiftheplaintiffwasnotsatisfiedwiththesubsequentrepairwork, itwouldbeincumbentuponhertofileanopposingAffidavitandtheCourtwouldthendisposeofthematteronSummaryJudgment.   ` OnJune1,1998,theCircuitCourtenteredanorderinwhichitfoundthattheplaintiffsattorneyhad indicatedthatnoagreementhadbeenreachedconcerningthefloortilesandthatϜ[theattorney]wasunabletoprovideanycounteraffidavitsregardingtheremainingissues.Accordingly,theCourtgrantedfullsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendantanddismissedtheaction.AfterhermotionforreliefunderRules59and60,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,wasdenied,theplaintiffappealed.@tt)IIXfXXXf   ` WereviewtheCircuitCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment &l" againstthestandardofRule56,Tenn.R.Civ.P.ThatRuleprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` ...[the]judgmentsoughtshallberenderedforthwithifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.... ` `  Rule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.  t7$-6    ` Whenreviewingagrantofsummaryjudgment,an appellatecourtmustdecideanewifjudgmentinsummaryfashionisappropriate. #XfXXXf"#XfXXXfCowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth ,816S.W.2d  X 741,744(Tenn.1991); Gonzalezv.AlmanConstr.Co. ,857S.W.2d t$ 42,4445(Tenn.App.1993).Sincethisdeterminationinvolvesaquestionoflaw,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsjudgment. Robinsonv.Omer ,952S.W.2d423,426 H  (Tenn.1997); Hembreev.State ,925S.W.2d513,515(Tenn.1996). d  Inmakingourdetermination,wemustviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwemustdrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty. Byrdv.Hall ,847 8 S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993).Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyiftherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthenonlyiftheundisputedmaterialfactsentitlethemovingpartytoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Rule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Byrd , X" 847S.W.2dat211.   ` AstheSupremeCourthasstated#XfXXXf%#XfXXXf, amotionforsummary |'," judgmentgoesdirectlytothemeritsofthelitigation,andapartyfacedwithsuchamotionmayneitherignoreitnortreatitlightly. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat210;seealso Fowlerv.Happy ,0"( GoodmanFamily ,575S.W.2d496,498(Tenn.1978).Wherethe L.#* materialrelieduponbythemovingpartydemonstratesundisputedmaterialfactssupportingajudgmentforthatparty,thenonmovingpartymust,inordertodefeatsummaryjudgment,respondbysettingforthadmissiblefactsbeforethetrialcourtthatshowadisputeastothosefacts. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215. 6x,4  Thenonmovantcannotinthatinstancesimplyrelyuponthe 8D.6 allegationsofhisorherpleadings.SeeRule56.06, P  Tenn.R.Civ.P. #XfXXXf *#XfXXXf@88)III#XfXXXf-#   ` Wefirstturntotheplaintiffsargumentsregarding h  theproprietyofthelowercourtsgrantofpartialsummaryϜjudgmentinitsorderofJanuary9,1997.Inthisconnection,theplaintiffcontendsthatshewasdeprivedofthe30daynoticerequiredbyRule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.  #  6      ׀Shemaintainsthatthe h hearingonthedefendantsDecember5,1996,motion apparentlytookplaceonDecember16,1996.Asindicatedearlier,theordergrantingpartialsummaryjudgmentonthismotionwasnotentereduntilJanuary9,1997.Thereisnomentioninthatorder,oranyϜdirectevidenceintherecord,ofthedateofthehearing.Nevertheless,wenotethattheJanuary9,1997,orderisstamped RECEIVEDbythetrialcourtclerkonDecember27,1996;inviewofthisfact,itisreasonabletoinferthatthehearingmusthavetakenplaceatsomepointbeforeoronDecember27,1996,andthuspriortotheexpirationofthe30dayperiodrequiredbyRule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.  #  7       +|!(    ` Withregardtothe30dayperiod,theSupremeCourthasheldasfollows: |2,(0   8 ` Thepurposeoftheruleistoallowtheopposingpartytimetofilediscoverydepositions,affidavits,etc.,aswellastoprovidefullopportunitytoamend.Inprescribingthethirty(30)dayperiodtheruleusestheword shallandweholdthatitismandatoryandnotdiscretionary.... ` `    8 ` ...wherethereistheslightestpossibilitythatthepartyopposingthemotionforsummaryjudgmenthasbeendeniedtheopportunitytofileaffidavits,takediscoverydepositionsoramend,bythedispositionofamotionforsummaryjudgmentwithoutathirty(30)dayintervalfollowingthefilingofthemotion,itwillbenecessarytoremandthecasetocuresucherror. ` `   Cravenv.Lawson ,534S.W.2d653,655(Tenn.1976).Wehaveheld 2 thatafailuretocomplywiththeruledoesnotrequirethatagrantofsummaryjudgmentbesetasidewheretherecorddoesnotcontainanyindicationthatthenonmovingpartyopposedthehearingofthemotionwithinthe30dayperiod,requestedacontinuance,orwasprejudicedbytheprematurehearing.See "^  TeachersIns.&AnnuityAssnv.Harris ,709S.W.2d592,595 f$ (Tenn.App.1985).Insoholding,wenotedthatRule36(a),T.R.A.P.,doesnotrequirethatrelief begrantedtoaparty...whofailedtotakewhateveractionwasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror, Id. ;wealso 6+ ' pointedoutthat,pursuanttoRule36(b),T.R.A.P.,ajudgmentwillnotbesetasideforharmlesserrorforexample,where .^$+ therecordcontainsnoshowingofprejudicetothenonmovant. Id.  2'/    ` Intheinstantcase,therecordcontainsnoindicationthattheplaintiffobjectedinanywaytothehearingbeingheldwithin30daysofserviceofthemotionuponher.Aswasthe 8.7 casein Harris ,itappearsthattheplaintiffdidnotopposethe P  hearingorrequestacontinuance.Itislikewiseclearthattheplaintiffsubmittednoaffidavitsinoppositiontothedefendantsmotion;nordidshefileanyresponsetothemotionuntilseveralmonthsafterithadbeengranted.Inshort,theplaintiffhasfailedtopointtoanythingintherecordtoindicatethatthehearingwasheldoverherobjection;nordoesshetakethepositioninherbriefthatsuchwasthecase.Furthermore,shehasfailedtodemonstratehowshehassufferedanyprejudicefromthisallegederror.Onthecontrary,theplaintiffsargumentonthispointisessentiallylimitedtoherassertionthatshewasdeprivedof30daysnoticeandthatsuchfailuremandatesreversal,undertheabovequotedlanguagefrom Craven . ,     ` Underthesecircumstances,weareoftheopinionthatthefailuretoobservethe30dayperiodsetforthinRule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,doesnotconstitutesufficientgroundstodisturbthejudgmentinthiscase.See Harris ,709S.W.2dat595;see (X$ also Donnellyv.Walter ,959S.W.2d166,168(Tenn.App. t*$ & 1997)( Therewasabsolutelynoreasontosetasidethesummaryjudgmentsintheabsenceofsomeindicationthattheplaintiffhadaresponsetothedefendantsproperlysupportedmotions.)   ` Bythesametoken,thereissimplynothingintherecordtoindicatethattheissuesdisposedofbythegrantofpartialsummaryjudgment,i.e.,problemswiththelandscaping, H6+4 driveway,andwaterinthebasement,hadnotbeenconclusivelydeterminedbytheprioradjudicationintheTrialJusticeCourt. 9\/8 Again,wemustpointoutthattherecorddoesnotcontainacopyofeitherofthejudgmentsoftheTrialJusticeCourt,oratranscriptoftheevidencefromtheoriginalcaseinthatcourt.WhatwedohavebeforeusistheCircuitCourtsordergrantingpartialsummaryjudgment,inwhichtheCourtfoundthattheplaintiffscauseofactionastothoseissueshadbeenpreviouslylitigatedandsatisfied.Inshort,theCircuitCourtfoundthattheseissueshadbeenfullylitigatedintheearliersuit,andthereisnothingintherecordtosuggestotherwise.ItwastheappellantsresponsibilitytofurnishtheCourtofAppealswitharecordreflectingtheallegederror.Shefailedtodoso.Intheabsenceofarecord , reflectingerror,wemustassumethatthetrialcourtactedproperly. Lyonv.Lyon ,765 ` S.W.2d759,763(Tenn.App.1988).   ` WithregardtotheCircuitCourtsgrantofbothpartialandthenfullsummaryjudgment,theplaintiffarguesthather pleadingwasattestedastruebyherownoath,andthatmanyoftheallegationswereofherownknowledge.Shearguesthatbecauseheramendedcomplaintwasintheformofaverifiedcomplaint,itservedas thefunctionalequivalentofanaffidavit,andshouldhavebeenconsideredonthequestionofsummaryjudgment.Theplaintiffacknowledgesthatshesubmittednocountervailingexperttestimonyregardingtheissuesthatsurvivedthepartialsummaryjudgment;however,sheinsiststhather sworncomplaintstoodinoppositiontothedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentandaccompanyingaffidavits.  7D-6    ` Rule56.06,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,setsforththerequisite formforaffidavits:  8 ` Supportingandopposingaffidavitsshallbemadeonpersonalknowledge,shallsetforthsuchfactsaswouldbeadmissibleinevidence,andshallshowaffirmativelythattheaffiantiscompetenttotestifytothemattersstatedtherein.... ` `  FJTheSupremeCourthasheldthatstatementsbaseduponanaffiants own   belief  donotconstitute suchfactsaswouldbe `  admissibleinevidence,withinthemeaningofRule56.06. Fowlerv.HappyGoodmanFamily ,575S.W.2d496,498(Tenn.1978).  #  8      ׀  Similarly,in KeystoneIns.Co.v.Griffith ,659S.W.2d364  (Tenn.App.1983),thiscourtheldthatstatementsinanaffidavitmadeon informationandbeliefd o id notcomplywithRule56.05(now56.06)andc annot ouldnot beconsideredasevidence. Id. at366.  #  9      ׀ " Weexplainedthat [b]elief,nomatterhowsincere,isnotequivalenttoknowledge. Id. (quoting Jamesonv.Jameson ,176 |%,  F.2d58(D.C.Cir.1949) ) .   ` Intheinstantcase,theoathattachedtotheplaintiffsamendedcomplaintrecitesasfollows: -#*   8 ` HOADAOPHUNG,havingbeendulyswornaccordingtolaw,makesoaththatshehasreadtheforegoingAmendedComplaintandthatthestatementssetforththereinaretruetothebestofherknowledge,informationandbelief. ` `  Thus,itisclearthattheallegationsintheplaintiffsamendedcomplaintwerenotbasedexclusivelyuponherpersonalknowledge.Inlightofheroath,itisimpossibletodeterminewhichallegations were mayhavebeen foundeduponpersonalknowledge,andwhichwereϜmerelystatementsbaseduponwhatshe believedtobetrue.Thisbeingthecase,wecannotsaythattheverifiedcomplaintmeetsthestandardsrequiredofaffidavitsbyRule56.06,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Wethereforedonotagreewiththeplaintiffthattheamendedcomplaintisthe functionalequivalentofanaffidavit.   ` Thedefendantpresentedthecourtwithseveralaffidavitsdemonstratingthattherewerenodisputedmaterialfactscreatingagenuineissuefortrial. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat &l" 215.Theburdenthenshiftedtotheplaintiff tosetforthspecificfacts,notlegalconclusions,byusingaffidavitsorthediscoverymaterialslistedinRule[56.04],establishingthatthereindeedexistedgenuineissuesofmaterialfact. Byrd ,847 -<#* S.W.2dat215 . Theplaintiffwasnotentitledtosimplyrely X/%, upontheallegationsofherpleadings.Rule56.06,Tenn.R.Civ.P.; XXXXByrd ,847S.W.2dat215.#XXXXp^#ԀTherecordindicates, 2(0 however,thatapproximatelyfourmonthspassedbetweenthefilingofthedefendantssecondmotionforsummaryjudgmentandtheentryoftheCircuitCourtstwoordersgranting summaryjudgment themotion .Duringthistime,theplaintiffdidnotfilea 9P/8 responsetothedefendantsmotion,didnotsubmitanyopposingaffidavits,anddidnotfileamotionforacontinuanceinordertoobtainaffidavitsorpursuediscovery.   ` Inlightoftheforegoing,weholdthatthetrialcourtwascorrectingrantingthedefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,bothinitiallyastothosematterswhichhadbeenadjudicatedintheoriginalaction,andsubsequentlyastotheremainingissuesinthecase.Theplaintiffsargumentstothecontraryarefoundtobewithoutmerit.@tt)IV   ` Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.