ÿWPCD  if‚Qcs›­F$U»D~Ôg¾x•¬èÏýV%cÁÞ€Iœìù9æ¿ÒîFIñÆÇ"¡|^°8 µ‘l¼iñŽt–û€–¬ªVã—D†U¬„òUÌ ,’h¹³n*oŒ½]„@‹)#¹dh;þ†n¬è5îQÓmðÊwÈD«Øº9ÿ0€I¸Z'm¥–Mn§;„ÎM*c…4_Üpé·±CuÕEÉ}Ñl~½Žû«·Ž[uIcùBmÆê §V†A™Â»°xŸŸ2!h`$Ô®.j‚kU˜‘»ð¾êاXízað]š¬Y<‘8À/â°[¼¡ ÿaAù½U¡,] Š¢!Š€ÃÌýî&ëÀq=Œê?Öâ¹pxdöàn&ænØ@Øãø(æU’ cø¢…:ìyK|‹Œ7›`ràp×ëKæûÁyV@ºâäÄ-\cÆ)ësëŸÑå?‹…@Y@QqK+ XŸ±:Õž° ùÇÓ3ìš&=Ô7ZRx”žãú Kì“í†MRΗï“^ïB‚ï#¡Nixëy­6*ÄÔ¬ü&E:+`0ïÖ5§Â]&ŽeÀœLÉ8–mP(Ù!o1¤ß$¹¨Qz–}úýÆZ* @Ö,H`Ç‘ý*Q¢xFVŸª*# LU:W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 .6KU:NˆU:‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹ AQÅÆ 0DÜ 0D 0Dd d D/¨ B× Bô D3 ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ¯°±D²D³D´Dµ¶·Ó€ÁÖ~-&3|xÃ Ñ  Ñ ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XÏÓXXXÔÔ€ ´pX XÏÓÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XÏÓX ´pÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€2,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÏÓXXXÔÔ€´pXXÏÓÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÏÓX´pÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒѰÑñ·ñ›ñ·ñÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÏÓXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼¦Z¼XXÔÓ  ÓñÁññ·ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñ·ññÁññÁñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñÁññ·ñ›ñ·ñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XÏÓX¼¼¦ZԈР ÐÌœÌÌ›ÌÌÌD.€D.€ROBERTS€d/b/a€ROBERTSà  àà è à)Ð ”Œ ÐCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY€and€ROBERTSà è à)Ð zr  ÐCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€INC.,à  àà è à)Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àœPlaintiffs/Appellants,›à 8 àà  àà è àœ)›à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àœÐ ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à›à  àà è à)à @ àÐ   МVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÐ øð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌTOMMY€YARBROUGH€d/b/a€TOMMYà  àà è à)à @ àРļ ÐYARBROUGH€PAINTING€CONTRACTOR,à è à)Ð ª¢ ÐYARBROUGH€œPAINTING›€AND€DRYWALL,à è àœ)Ð ˆ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee,à 8 àà  àà è à)›Ð \T Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìandà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àAppeal€No.Ð (  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ à01„A„01„9802„CH„00096Ð  ÐTHOMAS€LUMBER€COMPANY,€INC.,à  àà è à)Ð ôì Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àMontgomery€ChanceryÐ ÚÒ ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àNos.à ˜ àC11„549à H! àà  # àÐ À¸ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ à€€€€€€€€à ˜ à96„07„0060Ð ¦ž ÐNARAN€PATEL€and€KUSUM€PATEL€andà è à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ˜ à96„07„0139Ð Œ „ ÐTOMMY€YARBROUGH€and€MAYA€œGRAU›à è à)Ð r!j Ðd/b/a€YARBROUGH€PAINTING,€andà  àà è à)Ð X"P ÐHERITAGE€BANK,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð >#6 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìandà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð  %! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌTOMMY€YARBROUGH€d/b/a€YARBROUGHà è à)Ð Ö&Î# ÐPAINT€AND€DRYWALL,à à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð ¼'´ $ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð ˆ)€"& Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌD.€D.€ROBERTS,€ROBERTS€à 8 àà  àà è à)Ð T+L$( ÐCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€NARANà  àà è à)Ð :,2%) МTAPEL›,€KUSUM€PATEL€and€HERITAGEà è à)Ð  -&* ÐBANK,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð .þ&+ ÐÌÌœÌÌ›à@}}êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYˆÌà@"êàAT€œCLARKSVILLE›,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@ƒ ƒ êàTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€A.€œCATALANO›,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌœÌÌÌLARRY›€J.€WALLACEÌ118€Franklin€StreetÐ €;x4:/ МClarksville›,€Tennessee€37040Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€D.€D.€Roberts,€Roberts€Construction€Co.,€Ìà Ø àRoberts€Construction€Co.,€Inc.€and€Continental€Casualty€Co.ÌÌœRODGER›€N.€BOWMANÌ601€North€Second€Street,€Suite€4ÌœClarksville›,€Tennessee€37041„1404Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Tommy€œYarbrough›€d/b/a€Tommy€YarbroughÌà Ø àContracting,€Yarbrough€Painting€&€DrywallÌÌMICHAEL€K.€WILLIAMSONÌ121€South€Third€StreetÌClarksville,€Tennessee€37040Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Thomas€Lumber€Company,€Inc.ÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌ›à@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌœÌÌ›ÌÌÌœÌÌ›à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àBEN€H.€CANTRELLÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌKOCH,€J.ÌTODD,€J.ÌÐ  `'X $ ÐÓÓò òÔ€„|„XXÏÓÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÏÓX„„|ԈР ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àTwo€subcontractors€recovered€œjudgments€for›€work€done€on€aÏconstruction€project€in€Clarksville.€€On€appeal€the€general€contractor€œand€the€suretyÏon€his€bond€allege›€that€œthe›€œappellees›€œwere›€œnot›€licensed€œcontractors›€and€that€neitherÏcomplied€with€the€notice€of€nonpayment€statute.€€In€addition,€the€appellant€disputesÏthe€trial€courtððs€version€of€the€proof€and€the€award€of€prejudgment€interest.€€We€œaffirmÏthe€trial€court.›ÌÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ ØÐ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àRoberts€Construction€Company,€Inc.€had€the€contract€to€build€a€FairfieldÏInn€in€Clarksville.€€In€August€of€1995€Tommy€Yarbrough€agreed€to€hang€and€finish€theÏdrywall€for€a€total€contract€price€of€$51,370.00.€€Roberts€agreed€to€furnish€the€drywall.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€job€did€not€go€well.€€Yarbrough€was€delayed€by€rain€and€a€lack€ofÏheat€in€the€building.€€œSome›€of€the€work€had€to€be€redone€to€cover€exposed€pipes€inÏthe€œrooms,›€and€to€work€around€some€changes€in€the€electrical€outlets.€€In€œaddition,›ÏYarbrough€had€to€replace€some€of€the€drywall€damaged€by€water€and€to€frame€upÏsome€bathroom€ceilings.€€During€the€course€of€his€work€Yarbrough€bought€supplies€„„Ïincluding€some€drywall€„„€from€Thomas€Lumber€Company.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àBy€March€of€1996€Yarbrough€and€Roberts€were€at€war€over€the€progressÏof€the€work,€payment€for€the€extras,€and€payment€of€the€balance€of€the€contract€price.€ÏOn€March€18,€Roberts€wrote€to€œYarbrough›€promising€payment€of€the€balance€of€theÏâ âcontract€price€($11,000)€plus€$4,000€in€extras€if€Yarbrough€finished€the€job€by€MarchÐ Ø6Ð/2 Ð22.€€Yarbrough€left€the€job€for€good€and€Roberts€hired€another€contractor€to€finish€theÏœwork.›Ìâ âÌà Ø àà 0 àVarious€lawsuits€were€filed€by€the€parties€(plus€other€contractors€on€theÏjob),€but€the€disputes€between€Roberts,€Yarbrough,€and€Thomas€Lumber€œCompany›Ïwere€heard€by€the€Chancery€Court€of€Montgomery€œCounty›€on€September€2,€1997.€ÏœThe›€chancellorððs€order€resolved€all€the€disputed€facts€and€granted€(1)€Yarbrough€aÏjudgment€against€Roberts€in€the€amount€of€$30,813.62€for€his€work€and€$8,514.62€forÏsheetrock€he€purchased€for€the€job€from€Thomas€Lumber€Company,€(2)€ThomasÏLumber€Company€a€$13,230.55€lien€on€the€œimprovements,›€and€a€judgment€againstÏYarbrough€for€$13,684.80€on€the€open€accounts.€€The€chancellor€dismissed€RobertsððÏclaim€against€Yarbrough€for€breach€of€contract.ÌÌà@––-êàò òII.ó óˆÐ h` Ðà@jjêàò òThe€Contractorððs€Licensing€Statuteó óˆÐ H!@ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€œappeal,›€Roberts€argues€that€Yarbrough€and€Thomas€LumberÏCompany€were€not€licensed€œcontractors,›€and€were€thus€confined€to€recovering€onlyÏtheir€documented€expenses€shown€by€clear€and€convincing€proof.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ È(À!$ ÐAnn.€ðð€62„6„103(b).€€This€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€initial€pleadings,€and€whenÏRoberts€attempted€to€amend€the€pleadings€just€before€trial,€the€chancellor€overruledÏthe€motion.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWith€respect€to€Thomas€Lumber€Company€the€chancellor€was€surelyÏcorrect.€€œThe›€lumber€company€is€simply€a€supplier€of€materials€and€the€statutoryÏdefinition€of€ð ðcontractorðð€does€not€purport€to€include€suppliers.€€œWith›€respect€toÏYarbrough,€the€chancellor€overruled€the€motion€œto€amend€on›€the€ground€thatÏsubcontractors€were€not€required€to€be€œlicensed.›€€We€œpretermitted›€that€question€in€aÐ ¨9 26 Ðrelated€œcase,›€because€the€issue€had€not€been€squarely€presented€œto›€the€trial€court.€Ð  ÐòòSee€Razorback€Marble€Manufacturing€Co.€v.€D.€D.€Robertsóó,€No.€01„A„01„9709„CH„Ð èà Ð00512€œ(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July›€1,€1998).€€œñ´ñPerhaps›€it›€is›€time›€to›€ñ´ññ´ñsettle€this€question.ñ´ñ›ÌÌœà Ø àà 0 àWe€need€not€decide€that€issue€here,€either.€€The€dispute€betweenÏRoberts€and€Yarbrough€is€a€dispute€between€two€contractors.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏand€this€court€have€held€that€the€rule€that€refuses€an€unlicensed€contractorððs€accessÏto€the€courts€does€not€apply€to€disputeñµñsñµñ€between€contractors.€€òòGene€Taylor€&€SonsÐ (  ÐPlumbing€Co.€v.€Corondolet€Realty€Trustóó,€611€S.W.2d€572€(Tenn.€1981);€òòWiltcher€v.Ð  ÐBradleyóó,€708€S.W.2d€407€(Tenn.€App.€1985);€òòCustom€Built€Homes€v.€G.€S.€HinsenÐ èà ÐCompany,€Inc.óó,€No.€01A01„9511„CV„00513€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Feb.€6,€1998).€€TheÐ ÈÀ Ðlicense€requirement€was€passed€to€protect€the€public.€€òòGene€Taylor€&€Sons€PlumbingÐ ¨  ÐCo.€v.€Corondolet€Realty€Trustóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€575.€€That€protection€is€not€requiredÐ ˆ€ Ðwhen€persons€engaged€in€the€same€profession€are€dealing€with€each€other.€ÏTherefore,€the€fact€that€ñ¬ñMr.€ñ¬ñYarbrough€did€not€have€a€contractorððs€license€is€not€a€defenseÏto€his€claim€against€Roberts.€€We€take€no€position€on€the€queñ­ñsñ­ññ®ññ­ñiñ­ñiñ®ñtñ¯ñiñ¯ñon€of€whether€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€62„6„103(b)€applies€to€subcontrañ°ñcñ°ñtors€generally.›ÌÌà@zz,êàò òIII.ˆÐ È(À!$ Ðà@$êàNotice€of€Non„Paymentó óˆÐ ¨* #& ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àœThe€appellants›€œassert›€on€appeal€that€neither€Yarbrough€nor€ThomasÏcomplied€with€the€notice€of€non„payment€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€66„11„145.€ÏAgain,€Roberts€did€not€attempt€to€raise€this€defense€until€the€trial,€and€the€chancellorÏoverruled€the€motion€to€amend.€€Ordinarily,€that€would€end€the€matter,€but€we€wouldÏalso€point€out€that€the€only€consequence€of€failing€to€comply€with€the€statute€is€toÏdefeat€the€claimantððs€lien€rights€on€the€improvement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ66„11„Ð È7À04 Ð145(c).›€€Roberts€as€the€general€contractor€is€hardly€in€a€position€to€assert€thatÐ ¨9 26 Ðdefense.€€Yarbroughððs€claim€against€Roberts€is€strictly€a€contract€claim,€so€the€failureÏto€comply€with€the€statute€is€not€a€defense€to€that€action.€€Thomas€Lumber€CompanyððsÏjudgment€œdoes€include€a€lien€on€the€improvement,€but€the€chancellorððs€decision€toÏdisallow€the€defense,€raised€for€the€first€time€at€trial,€was€well€within€her€discretion.›ÌÌà@oo-êàò òIV.ˆÐ h`  Ðà@AAêàThe€Preponderance€of€the€Evidenceó óˆÐ H@  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àœAppellantsðð›€issues€V,€VI,€VII,€and€VIII€all€present,€in€one€way€or€another,Ïthe€question€of€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€chancellor€found€thatÏYarbrough€performed€extra€work€in€the€amount€of€$43,485.00,€that€the€work€wasÏauthorized€by€Robertsðð€representative€on€the€job,€and€that€Thomas€Lumber€CompanyÏfurnished€materials€in€the€amount€of€$13,230.55€for€the€job.€€(This€figure€was€includedÏin€the€figure€for€the€extra€work€recited€above.)ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àœThe€appellants›€œargue›€first€that€Yarbrough€was€not€entitled€to€any€extras,Ïand€in€a€related€issue,€œargue›€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€resolving€the€credibilityÏquestions€in€Yarbroughððs€favor.€€œWith›€respect€to€the€credibility€issue,€the€courts€haveÏconsistently€held€that€the€trial€judgeððs€determination€of€credibility€will€not€be€overturnedÏon€appeal€unless€other€real€evidence€compels€a€contrary€conclusion.€€òòState€ex€relÐ ¨* #& МBalsinger›€v.€Town€of€œMadisonville›óó,€435€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€1968);€òòsee€also€TennesseeÐ ˆ,€%( ÐValley€œKaolin›€Corp.€v.€œPerryóó,›€526€S.W.2d€488€(Tenn.€App.€1975);€òòTown€of€Alamo€v.Ð h.`'* МForcum„James›€Co.óó,€327€S.W.2d€47€œ(Tenn.€1959).›€€We€see€nothing€in€the€record€thatÐ H0@), Ðindicates€the€chancellor€erred€in€believing€one€witness€over€another.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€real€question€here€is€whether€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€œagainst€the›€chancellorððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð È7À04 ÐProc.€€The€chancellor€made€an€extensive€list€of€findings,€all€supporting€YarbroughððsÐ ¨9 26 Ðclaims.€€To€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€these€findings€would€requireÏus€to€reverse€the€chancellorððs€credibility€determination.€€Therefore,€we€cannot€find€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€chancellorððs€findings.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àRoberts€also€argues€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€admitting€a€tapeÏrecording€made€of€Yarbroughððs€conversation€with€Robertsðð€agent€on€the€job€site.€€TheÏconversation€concerned€the€extra€work€and€the€payment€due€Yarbrough€forÏperforming€the€extras.€€Roberts€insists€that€the€tape€is€inaudible,€that€YarbroughððsÏrecorded€statements€are€self„serving,€that€the€tape€contains€hearsay,€that€it€shouldÏhave€been€excluded€because€it€contains€evidence€of€an€attempted€compromise,€andÏthat€it€violates€the€parol€evidence€rule.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellant€has€not€pointed€out€the€specific€portions€of€theÏconversation€that€are€objectionable.€€There€is€no€transcript€of€the€tape€(which€wasÏplayed€in€open€court)€and€the€œappellants›€œhave›€not€pointed€out€how€the€alleged€errorÏin€admitting€the€tape€prejudiced€œthem.›€€òòSeeóó€Rule€œ6(a)(3),›€Rules€of€the€Court€ofÐ (#  ÐAppeals.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€think€the€chancellor€acted€within€her€discretion€in€listening€to€theÏtape.€€The€admission€of€any€incompetent€evidence€on€the€tape€comes€œwithin›€our€rulesÏon€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€36(b),€Tenn.€R.€App.€Proc.Ð ˆ,€%( ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àRoberts€also€asserts€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€ruling€inadmissibleÏanother€tape€of€a€conversation€between€Roberts€and€Yarbrough.€€Getting€relief€on€thisÏœground,›€however,€is€even€more€œdoubtful€because›€œthe›€tape€is€not€in€the€record.€ÏWithout€an€offer€of€proof€we€cannot€judge€whether€the€exclusion€of€the€evidence€wasÏprejudicial€to€the€appellant€or€not.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€103(a)(2),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€Therefore,€weÐ È7À04 Ðfind€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.Ð ¨9 26 Їà@‹‹-êàœò òV.ó ó›ˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àFinally,€Roberts€asserts€that€the€chancellor€abused€her€discretion€inÏallowing€œYarbrough›€to€recover€pre„judgment€interest.€€Pre„judgment€interest€isÏgoverned€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„123€which€allows€courts€or€juries€to€award€pre„¼judgment€interest€ð ðin€accordance€with€the€principles€of€equity.ðð€€The€award€is€not€aÏmatter€of€right€on€unliquidated€claims.€€òòB.F.€Myers€&€Son€v.€Evansóó,€612€S.W.2d€912Ð H@  Ð(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€But€it€may€be€awarded€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòHowardÐ (  ÐG.€Lewis€Const.€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Leeóó,€830€S.W.2d€60€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Whether€theÐ  Ðplaintiffððs€claim€is€the€subject€of€a€substantial€dispute€has€been€held€to€be€a€factor.€€òòId.óó€Ð èà ÐIn€some€cases€it€is€the€decisive€factor.€€òòTextile€Workers€Local€No.€513€v.€BrooksideÐ ÈÀ ÐMills,€Inc.óó,€326€S.W.2d€671€œ(Tenn.€1959).›Ð ¨  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€this€case€the€chancellor€allowed€prejudgment€interest€to€run€from€MayÏ31,€1996.€€There€is€not€much€dispute€œthat€by›€that€time€that€Yarbrough€was€owedÏsomething.€€In€March€Roberts€asked€Yarbrough€to€complete€the€job€in€four€days€andÏpromised€to€pay€the€balance€of€the€contract€price€plus€$4,000€for€the€extra€work.€€TheÏrecord€shows€that€the€extra€work€had€been€requested€by€Robertsðð€representative€andÏa€tentative€agreement€had€been€reached€on€the€amount,€but€Roberts€objected€onlyÏto€the€amount.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€think€the€award€was€within€the€chancellorððs€discretion.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏMontgomery€County€for€any€further€proceedings€that€may€be€necessary.€€Tax€theÏcosts€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌœñ²ñÌñ²ññ±ñÐ ¨9 26 Ðñ±ñ›ÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.Ð ¨9 26 М‡ñ³ñÌ›Ìñ³ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌÐ  80  ÐѰÑÑ  ќԀ¼çÒ¼XX9MÔò òÑ€ P¨Ñ›à@êê.êàœñ¶ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEñ¶ñó óñ¶ñÔ€X9MX¼¼çÒÔˆÐ Æ Ð̛̜ÌD.€D.€ROBERTS€d/b/a€ROBERTSà  àà è à)Ð ¬ ü ÐCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY€and€ROBERTSà è à)Ð œ ì ÐCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€INC.,à  àà è à)Ð Œ Ü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àœPlaintiffs/Appellants,›à 8 àà  àà è à)Ð l ¼  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÐ \¬  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÐ Lœ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌTOMMY€YARBROUGH€d/b/a€TOMMYà  àà è à)à @ àÐ ,|  ÐYARBROUGH€PAINTING€CONTRACTOR,à è à)Ð l  ÐYARBROUGH€PAINING€AND€DRYWALL,à è àœ)Ð  \ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee,à 8 àà  àà è à)›Ð ì< Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìandà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àAppeal€No.Ð Ì Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ à01„A„01„9802„CH„00096Ð ¼  ÐTHOMAS€LUMBER€COMPANY,€INC.,à  àà è à)Ð ¬ü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àMontgomery€ChanceryÐ œì ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àNos.à ˜ àC11„549à H! àà  # àÐ ŒÜ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ à€€€€€€€€à ˜ à96„07„0060Ð |Ì ÐNARAN€PATEL€and€KUSUM€PATEL€andà è à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ˜ à96„07„0139Ð l¼ ÐTOMMYYARBROUGHT€and€MAYAœ€GRA›Uà è à)Ð \¬ Ðd/b/a€YARBROUGH€PAINTING,€andà  àà è à)Ð Lœ ÐHERITAGE€BANK,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð <Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìandà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð !l Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌTOMMY€YARBROUGH€d/b/a€YARBROUGHà è à)Ð ü"L  ÐPAINT€AND€DRYWALL,à à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð ì#<! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð Ì%!# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌD.€D.€ROBERTS,€ROBERTS€à 8 àà  àà è à)Ð ¬'ü"% ÐCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€NARANà  àà è à)Ð œ(ì#& МTAPEL›,€KUSUM€PATEL€and€HERITAGEà è à)Ð Œ)Ü$' ÐBANK,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð |*Ì%( ÐÌÔ€¼çÒ¼XX9MÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ \,¬'* ÐÌÓÓÔ€X9MX¼¼çÒÔà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ ˆ.Ø), ÐChancery€Court€of€Montgomery€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€the€ChancellorÏthere€is€no€reversible€error.Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Montgomery€County€for€the€enforcement€of€theÏdecree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ð ¨;ø6: ÐÑ P¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ¶ññ³ñÑ P¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ³ññ¶ñà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€D.€D.€Roberts,€Principal,€andÏœLarry€J.€Wallace,›€Surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌœÌÌ›Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.̛̜ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌ̛̜ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌñ¶ñ›