ÿWPC0  ½v’ý·}17fŸðãŸ:X„¬gÄÒ !Ð×qº^këp+TDðÆ:PñÞ*/=Æs¿È±°œÃÖÑÞ˼uó]Ü“¹ÊSÒÿ·´»-…àTR~§H£5à{å"bgQ…WϹ£Wð¨êAÒ>F§'Ççf@ZEDq7—±Ú÷EŸ/Ôbx ¥ˆ7ˆ.À¦ Ük„9 ÀÞúKÙ/êdä”b¿’M„Œ‘h4Šý¤x‹­¶^Ù0÷Ý)¨ŽE™ï²…ŒäòYøeq«[ªGÌ¡L%Ýpƒ761ü÷`ëâC´ý²„a#!NU :o %© 0(¯b ×wã4çûn­ · N¿ ^ Á Í mÏ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ æ AQý ÆN 0D 0DX 0Dœ œ D3à B ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -{Z='¸¸¸¸¸¸3|x«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@$‘!' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€lXXÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X¯ÕXlÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAYÔó óZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó````'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€¯ÕXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼F+»XXÔÓ  Óßv€Y_@0,j:`  `€€@ÿEô ` 8ttxP,ð  vßÔ_Ôà@ êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ŸŸ(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€X¯ÕX»¼F+ԈР ÐÌÌÌÌSOUTHWEST€PROGRESSIVEà 8 àà  à)Ð È À ÐENTERPRISES,€INC.,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ® ¦ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð zr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9810„CH„00542Ð F>  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRutherford€ChanceryÐ   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€97CV„534Ð øð  ÐSHRI„HARI€HOSPITALITY,€LLC,€andà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ÞÖ  ÐTRANS€FINANCIAL€BANK€OFà 8 àà  à)Рļ ÐTENNESSEE,€N.A.,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ª¢ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à 8 àà  à)Ð vn ÐÌÌà@¤¤êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYˆÌà@]]!êàAT€MURFREESBORO,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@  êàTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€D.€FROSTÌ815€South€Church€StreetÌMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€37130Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌJAMES€C.€BRADSHAW,€IIIÌ1500€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppellantÌÌÌÌÌà@  êàAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;ˆÌà@¿¿(êàAND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÐ  Î8Æ17 ÐÓÓò òÔ€„ü{„XX¯ÕÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€X¯ÕX„„ü{ԈР ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àA€construction€company€sued€a€hotelkeeper€for€payment€of€the€balanceÐ œ ” Ðdue€on€their€contract.€€The€trial€court€ordered€the€hotelkeeper€to€pay€the€balance,€asÐ h ` Ðwell€as€pre„judgment€interest€and€attorney€fees.€€We€affirm€the€award€of€pre„judgmentÐ 4, Ðinterest,€but€we€reverse€the€award€of€attorney€fees.€€We€also€reverse€a€$500€offset€theÐ ø  Ðtrial€court€granted€to€the€defendant€for€the€plaintiffððs€alleged€failure€to€complete€aÐ ÌÄ  Ðpunch€list.Ð ˜  ÐÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ 0( ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àDefendant€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€Hospitality€(Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari),€was€the€owner€and€developerÐ ÔÌ Ðof€the€Ô_ÔWingateÔ_Ô€Hotel€in€Murfreesboro.€€On€December€10,€1996€the€defendantÐ  ˜ Ðcontracted€with€a€construction€company€from€Texas,€Southwest€ProgressiveÐ ld ÐEnterprises€(Southwest),€to€have€Southwest€spray€a€textured€plastic€finishing€materialÐ 8!0 Ðcalled€Ô_ÔPlextureÔ_Ô€to€the€walls€in€85€rooms€of€the€new€hotel.€€The€total€contract€price€wasÐ #ü Ð$39,154.€€The€contract€provided€that€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€would€make€a€$15,675€down€paymentÐ Ð$È  Ðon€the€contract€price€upon€delivery€of€the€construction€materials,€with€the€balance€ofÐ œ&”" Ð$23,479€payable€upon€completion€of€the€work.€€The€contract€also€provided€thatÐ h(`!$ Ðpayments€due€and€unpaid€under€the€contract€would€accrue€interest€at€the€rate€of€10%Ð 4*,#& Ðper€year.Ð ,ø$( ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àSouthwest€sent€a€crew€of€its€employees€from€Dallas,€Texas€to€do€theÐ ˜/(, Ðwork.€€They€were€informed€that€the€rooms€were€not€yet€ready.€€After€10€unproductiveÐ d1\*. Ðdays,€the€crew€was€able€to€begin€work.€€At€some€point,€the€defendant€signed€a€written€Ð 03(,0 Ðauthorization€for€additional€work€that€added€$2,465€to€the€contract€price.€€SouthwestððsÐ ü4ô-2 Ðemployees€completed€the€work€in€about€two€weeks,€and€the€contractor€submitted€aÐ È6À/4 Ðbill€for€the€balance.€€When€payment€was€not€forthcoming,€it€filed€a€notice€ofÐ ”8Œ16 Ðcontractorððs€lien€on€February€4,€1997,€followed€by€a€complaint€on€August€16,€1997,Ð  Ðwhich€asked€the€court€to€award€it€the€contract€amount€and€pre„judgment€interest,€asÐ ÔÌ Ðwell€as€$10,000€for€lost€profits€due€to€the€delay€in€beginning€the€work.€Ð   ˜ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àÔ_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€subsequently€filed€an€answer€and€counterclaim,€in€which€itÐ 80 Ðcharged€Southwest€with€shoddy€workmanship.€€It€claimed€that€Southwestððs€employeesÐ ü  Ðhad€damaged€vanities,€air€conditioner€covers,€and€other€hotel€property,€and€mostÐ ÐÈ  Ðimportantly,€that€they€had€negligently€painted€over€sprinkler€heads,€causing€a€delayÐ œ”  Ðin€the€opening€of€the€hotel€and€a€loss€of€revenue€and€profits.€€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€alleged€thatÐ h` Ðits€damages€amounted€to€$50,000.€Ð 4, ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€evidence€at€trial€in€regard€to€the€construction€contract€was€fairlyÐ ÌÄ Ðstraightforward,€but€the€defendantððs€counterclaim€was€hotly€disputed.€€While€there€wasÐ ˜ Ðno€doubt€that€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hariððs€property€had€been€damaged,€there€was€conflicting€testimonyÐ d\ Ðas€to€cause.€€The€defendant€insisted€that€the€damage€to€the€sprinkler€heads€wasÐ 0 ( Ðcaused€by€the€plaintiffððs€careless€application€of€Ô_ÔPlextureÔ_Ô.€€The€plaintiff€presented€the€Ð ü!ô Ðtestimony€of€several€individuals€to€refute€this€theory,€including€a€young€man€who€hadÐ È#À  Ðbeen€hired€by€the€defendant€to€spray€primer€on€the€walls€before€SouthwestððsÐ ”%Œ" Ðemployees€appeared€on€the€scene,€and€who€stated€that€he€did€not€take€any€steps€toÐ `'X $ Ðprotect€the€sprinkler€heads€from€the€spray.€€Ð ,)$"& ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€not€proven€its€counterclaimÐ Ä,¼%* Ðon€the€matter€of€the€sprinklers€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€but€that€it€hadÐ .ˆ', Ðestablished€the€right€to€offset€the€judgment€for€Southwest€by€$1,726€because€ofÐ \0T). Ðdamage€to€vanities,€and€by€another€$500€for€Southwestððs€failure€to€complete€a€punchÐ (2 +0 Ðlist.€€Plaintiff€Southwest€was€awarded€its€contract€balance€minus€the€offsets,€as€wellÐ ô3ì,2 Ðas€pre„judgment€interest€of€$4,107,€and€attorney€fees€of€$5,510.€€Defendant€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„HariÐ À5¸.4 Ðappealed€to€this€court€solely€on€the€issues€of€pre„judgment€interest€and€attorney€fees.Ð Œ7„06 ÐÐ X9P28 Ðà@77!êàò òII.€€Pre„Judgment€Interestó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIt€has€long€been€the€law€in€Tennessee€that€courts€may€award€pre„Ð ¬ ¤ Ðjudgment€interest€in€accordance€with€the€principles€of€equity.€òòFisher€v.€Ô_ÔKlippstatterÔ_Ôóó,Ð x p Ð689€S.W.2d€870€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„123€[Acts€1979,€ch.Ð H@ Ð203,€ðð€22].€€Such€an€award€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€shouldÐ   Ðnot€be€reversed€in€the€absence€of€a€manifest€and€palpable€abuse€of€that€discretion.òòÐ àØ  ÐSpencer€v.€A„1€Crane€Service,€Inc.óó,€880€S.W.2d€938,€944€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ¬¤  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àÔ_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€pre„judgmentÐ H@ Ðinterest€to€Southwest,€because€the€obligation€to€pay€such€interest€never€arose€underÐ   Ðthe€partiesðð€contract.€€The€appellant€notes€that€the€contract€called€for€payment€of€theÐ àØ Ðbalance€due€upon€completion€of€the€work,€with€interest€to€accrue€upon€the€unpaidÐ ¬¤ Ðbalance€at€a€rate€of€10%€per€year.€€The€appellant€argues€that€Southwest€neverÐ xp Ðcompleted€the€work,€and€thus€that€the€balance€never€became€due.€€The€appellant€alsoÐ D < Ðargues€that€the€trial€court€ruled€inconsistently€on€this€matter,€because€its€award€toÐ " ÐÔ_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€of€an€offset€for€Southwestððs€failure€to€complete€a€punch€list€amounts€to€aÐ Ü#Ô  Ðfinding€that€Southwest€did€not,€in€fact,€complete€the€job.€€We€will€deal€with€theÐ ¨% " Ðquestion€of€the€punch€list€later€in€this€opinion.€Ð t'l $ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellantððs€argument€does€not€address€the€equitable€purpose€ofÐ  +$( Ðawarding€pre„judgment€interest,€which€is€ð ðto€fully€compensate€a€plaintiff€for€the€lossÐ Ø,Ð%* Ðof€use€of€the€funds€to€which€he€or€she€was€legally€entitled.ðð€€òòMitchell€v.€Mitchellóó,€876Ð ¤.œ', ÐS.W.2d€830,€832€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€hotelkeeper€presented€no€evidence€thatÐ t0l). ÐSouthwest€failed€to€substantially€perform€the€work€it€contracted€to€do.€€We€know€of€noÐ @28+0 Ðtheory€that€would€have€enabled€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€to€avoid€any€payment€whatsoever€under€theÐ  4-2 Ðcontract€simply€because€it€did€not€feel€that€the€work€had€been€completed€to€itsÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðâ âsatisfaction.€€Thus,€Southwest€was€entitled€to€payment,€and€it€would€be€inequitable€toÐ ¤7œ06 Ðreward€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€for€its€refusal€to€pay€by€allowing€it€to€retain€the€use€of€money€it€owedÐ  Ðduring€the€course€of€legal€proceedings,€while€denying€that€use€to€Southwest.Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà Ø àà 0 àTo€bolster€an€otherwise€weak€argument,€appellant€cites€the€òòMitchellóóÐ l d Ðcase,€supra,€as€standing€for€the€proposition€that€when€an€obligation€is€disputed€onÐ <4 Ðreasonable€grounds,€it€is€not€appropriate€to€award€pre„judgment€interest.€€The€courtÐ   Ðactually€said€in€that€case€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]hereÔ_Ô,€as€in€this€case,€the€amount€of€the€obligation€isÐ ÔÌ  Ðcertain,€or€can€be€ascertained€by€a€proper€accounting,€and€the€obligation€is€notÐ  ˜  Ðdisputed€on€reasonable€grounds,€the€Court€may€allow€prejudgment€interest€inÐ ld Ðaccordance€with€the€principles€of€equity.ðð€€876€S.W.2d€at€832.Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€case€of€òòÔ_ÔMyintÔ_Ô€v.€Allstate€Insuranceóó,€970€S.W.2d€920€(1998),€ourÐ ÐÈ ÐSupreme€Court€discussed€the€factors€a€trial€court€ought€to€consider€in€awarding€pre„Ð  ˜ Ðjudgment€interest.€€In€that€case,€the€trial€court€granted€pre„judgment€interest€to€theÐ ld Ðplaintiffs,€and€the€appellant€challenged€that€award€because€of€uncertainty€as€to€theÐ 8 0 Ðamount€that€was€due,€and€the€argument€that€it€had€a€reasonable€basis€upon€which€toÐ "ü Ðdispute€liability.€€The€court€rejected€that€argument,€and€stated€that€equity€was€theÐ Ð#È  Ðforemost€principle€to€follow€when€awarding€pre„judgment€interest.€€In€regard€to€theÐ œ%”" Ðcriteria€mentioned€in€òòMitchell€v.€Mitchellóó,€supra,€the€court€said,€€ÓÓÐ h'` $ ÐÒ0 €ÒÒ°„ÒÌÒ°ÒWe€note€that€these€criteria,€if€strictly€construed,€could€prohibitÐ 6)."& Ðthe€recovery€of€prejudgment€interest€in€the€vast€majority€ofÐ *#' Ðcases.€€€Indeed,€only€a€liquidated€claim,€for€whichÐ +ú#( Ðprejudgment€interest€is€already€recoverable€as€a€matter€ofÐ è+à$) Ðright€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47-14-109,€can€truly€beÐ Î,Æ%* Ðconsidered€an€obligation€of€certain€and€indisputable€amount.Ð ´-¬&+ ÐFurther,€it€is€safe€to€say€that,€at€trial,€defendants€usually€canÐ š.’', Ðarticulate€at€least€one€good€reason€for€disputing€the€existenceÐ €/x(- Ðof€the€obligation,€for€were€it€otherwise,€defendants€wouldÐ f0^). Ðrarely€survive€summary€judgment.€€Finally,€the€focus€onÐ L1D*/ Ðwhether€the€defendant€had€a€reasonable€defense€ignores€theÐ 22*+0 Ðprinciple€that€prejudgment€interest€is€not€a€penalty€imposedÐ 3,1 Ðon€the€defendant€for€indefensible€conduct.Ð þ3ö,2 ÐÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€believe€that€it€would€be€inequitable€to€deny€Southwest€the€use€of€theÐ –7Ž06 Ðmoney€it€was€entitled€to€receive€under€the€partiesðð€contract,€simply€because€theÐ b9Z28 Ðdefendant€was€able€to€€articulate€a€possible€defense€to€payment.€€We€therefore€findÐ  Ðthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€awarding€prejudgment€interest.€€€Ð ÔÌ ÐÌò òà@$êàIII.€€Attorney€Feesó ó€ˆÐ l d ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àTennessee€courts€adhere€to€the€so„called€ð ðAmerican€rule,ðð€whichÐ   Ðprovides€that€attorney's€fees€may€not€be€awarded€to€the€prevailing€party€in€theÐ ÜÔ  Ðabsence€of€some€kind€of€statutory€authorization,€or€of€an€agreement€between€theÐ ¨   Ðparties€providing€for€such€fees.€òò€John€Kohl€&€Co.€v.€Dearborn€&€Ewingóó,€977€S.W.2dÐ tl Ð528€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€the€present€case,€there€is€no€provision€for€attorney€fees€in€theÐ D< Ðcontract€between€the€parties.€€However,€the€trial€court€awarded€attorney€fees€toÐ  ÐSouthwest€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€another€document€introduced€intoÐ ÜÔ Ðevidence€during€the€trial€of€the€case.Ð ¨  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€document€was€a€credit€application€that€Southwest€had€submittedÐ @ 8 Ðto€the€defendant,€and€which€was€signed€by€the€owner€of€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€on€November€22,Ð  " Ð1996,€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€construction€contract.€€James€Reed,€SouthwestððsÐ Ø#Ð  Ðowner,€testified€that€his€company€would€not€enter€into€a€construction€contract€thatÐ ¤%œ" Ðrequired€it€to€extend€its€services€to€a€property€owner€unless€the€owner€established€hisÐ p'h $ Ðcredit„worthiness€through€the€credit€application,€which€included€spaces€for€bank€andÐ <)4"& Ðtrade€references.€€In€exceedingly€small€print€at€the€bottom€of€the€credit€application€wasÐ +$( Ðlanguage€providing€for€finance€charges€of€1ðð%€per€month€on€past€due€charges,€andÐ Ô,Ì%* Ðfor€attorney€fees€and€collection€costs€incurred€in€the€collection€of€any€such€debt.€€TheÐ  .˜', Ðtrial€court€reasoned€that€the€pre„judgment€interest€provision€in€the€constructionÐ l0d). Ðcontract€superseded€the€one€in€the€credit€application,€but€that€since€the€constructionÐ 820+0 Ðcontract€was€silent€on€the€question€of€attorney€fees,€the€credit€application€expressedÐ 4ü,2 Ðthe€partiesðð€intention€on€that€matter.Ð Ð5È.4 Ðâ âÐ œ7”06 Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred,€because€its€rulingÐ  Ðâ âcontradicts€the€general€rule€of€merger,€which€is€that€the€last€written€agreementÐ ÔÌ Ðbetween€the€parties€supersedes€all€former€agreements€that€involve€the€same€subjectÐ   ˜ Ðmatter.€€In€such€a€case,€the€earlier€agreement€is€held€to€have€become€ð ðmergedðð€in€theÐ l d Ðmore€recent€one,€and€is€itself€extinguished.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€creditÐ 80 Ðapplication€was€merged€into€the€construction€contract,€which€then€became€ð ðthe€onlyÐ ü  Ðcontract€between€the€parties.ðð€òò€American€Fruit€Growers€v.€Ô_ÔHawkinsonÔ_Ôóó,€106€S.W.2dÐ ÐÈ  Ð564€(Tenn.€1937).Ð  ˜  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellee€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err,€arguing€that€theÐ 80 Ðcredit€application€did€not€involve€the€same€subject€matter€as€the€construction€contract,Ð ü Ðand€thus€that€the€two€contracts€did€not€merge.€€It€appears€to€us,€however,€that€whileÐ ÐÈ Ðthe€purpose€of€the€two€contracts€may€have€been€different,€the€subject€matter€of€theÐ œ” Ðfirst€is€encompassed€by€the€second.€Ð h` ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€construction€contract€is€a€comprehensive€document€that€includesÐ "ø Ðdetailed€provisions€as€to€the€work€to€be€done,€the€price€to€be€paid,€and€the€conditionsÐ Ì#Ä  Ðof€payment.€€One€section€includes€a€space€for€the€listing€of€other€documents€to€beÐ ˜%" Ðincorporated€by€reference€into€the€contract.€€The€credit€application€is€not€listed€in€thatÐ d'\ $ Ðsection,€or€mentioned€anywhere€else€in€the€construction€contract.€€We€must€thereforeÐ 0)("& Ðconclude€that€the€construction€contract€expresses€the€final€agreement€of€the€parties,Ð ü*ô#( Ðand€that€any€provisions€in€the€credit€application€that€vary€from€it€were€extinguishedÐ È,À%* Ðthrough€the€operation€of€merger.€€The€award€of€attorney€fees€is€reversed.€Ð ”.Œ', Ðò òó óÌà@ii%êàò òIV.€€The€Punch€Listó óˆÐ ,2$+0 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Reed€testified€at€trial€that€he€contacted€the€owner€of€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€fourÐ Ð5È.4 Ðor€five€times€by€phone€and€fax€in€an€attempt€to€get€a€punch€list€of€items€to€completeÐ œ7”06 Ðthe€job,€and€that€he€ordered€his€employees€to€return€to€Texas€because€his€calls€wereÐ h9`28 Ðnever€returned.€€Vince€Hari,€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hariððs€owner,€denied€that€he€had€ever€been€askedÐ  Ðfor€a€punch€list,€and€claimed€that€Southwestððs€employees€just€disappeared€one€dayÐ ÔÌ Ðwithout€notice.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€there€was€no€proof€that€a€punch€list€had€everÐ   ˜ Ðbeen€prepared,€or€of€the€values€of€any€items€which€might€have€been€placed€on€suchÐ l d Ða€list.Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àNonetheless,€the€chancellor€observed€that€a€punch€list€is€a€normalÐ ÐÈ  Ðcomponent€of€any€construction€job,€and€statedÐ œ”  ÐÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ àð ðGiven€the€circumstances€I€had€adopted€an€at€leastÐ h` Ðsomewhat€arbitrary€figure€for€those€punch€list€items.€€And€it€Ð NF Ðmay€be€too€high,€and€it€may€be€too€low.€€Which€it€is€mayÐ 4, Ðdepend€on€which€party€and€which€counsel€discusses€theÐ  Ðissue€after€the€case€is€concluded.Ð ø ÐÌà ˆ àð ðI€have€admittedly,€somewhat€arbitrarily,€assigned€aÐ ÌÄ Ðdollar€amount€of€$500€to€those€punch€list€items€and€IððveÐ ²ª Ðreduced€the€figure€then,€as€suggested€earlier,€by€that€dollarÐ ˜ Ðamount.ððÐ ~v ÐÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àIt€appears€to€us€that€any€award,€even€if€only€an€offset,€must€be€basedÐ ! Ðupon€some€proof€of€damages.€€In€this€case,€if€no€punch€list€was€available,€the€burdenÐ â"Ú Ðrested€on€the€counter„claimant€to€produce€evidence€as€to€what€work€Southwest€wasÐ ®$¦! Ðobligated€to€do€which€it€left€unfinished,€and€of€the€cost€of€finishing€the€work€by€otherÐ z&r# Ðmeans.€€Our€standard€of€review€is€governed€by€Ô_ÔTenn.R.App.P.Ô_Ô€13(d)€which€accordsÐ F(>!% Ða€presumption€of€correctness€to€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civil€actions,€unlessÐ * #' Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€In€this€case,€there€was€no€materialÐ Þ+Ö$) Ðevidence€whatsoever€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€and€therefore€theÐ ª-¢&+ Ðpresumption€must€fail.€€€€€€Ð v/n(- ÐÌà@‹‹-êàò òV.ó óˆÐ 3,1 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€award€of€attorney€fees€and€of€the€$500€offset€is€reversed.€€In€allÐ ²6ª/5 Ðâ âother€respects,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÐ ~8v17 ÐChancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ  Ðopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€equally€between€the€appellant€and€the€appellee.€€€Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌÔ_Ôà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àÔ_ÔÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # à¼à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à____________________________________Ð êâ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,Ð ÐÈ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.Ð ¶®  ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð NF ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð ÌÄ ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€Ð ²ª ÐÌÌÌÌ_____________________________Ð 0 ( ÐWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE€Ð ! ÐÐ  ü!ô ÐÑ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼i2»XX ³Ôò òà@ êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ŸŸ(êàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ Ä ÐÌÌÌó óÔ‡X ³X»¼i2ÔSOUTHWEST€PROGRESSIVEà 8 àà  à)Ð  d ÐENTERPRISES,€INC.,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ú J Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð à 0 Ðà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð Æ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð ¬ ü  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9810„CH„00542Ð ’â  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð xÈ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRutherford€ChanceryÐ ^®  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€97CV„534Ð D”  ÐÔ_ÔSHRIÔ_Ô„HARI€HOSPITALITY,€LLC,€andà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ *z  ÐTRANS€FINANCIAL€BANK€OFà 8 àà  à)à è àAffirmed€in€Part;€Ð ` ÐTENNESSEE,€N.A.,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àReversed€in€Part;€Ð öF Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àand€RemandedÐ Ü, Ðà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à 8 àà  à)Ð Â ÐÔ#†¼i2»XX ³´\#ÔÔ€X ³X»¼i2ÔÌÔ€¼i2»XX ³Ôò òòòà@ss'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ ŽÞ ÐÌÓÓÔ€X ³X»¼i2Ôà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ ° ÐChancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÐ |Ì Ðconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€award€for€attorney€fees€andÐ H˜ Ðthe€$500€offset€for€failure€to€complete€a€punch€list€should€be€reversed.€€In€all€otherÐ d Ðrespects€the€decree€is€affirmed.Ð à 0 Ðà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ð ¬"ü  Ðordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€inÐ x$È" Ðpart.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€furtherÐ D&”!$ Ðproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accruedÐ (`#& Ðbelow.Ð Ü),%( Ðà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€equally€against€Southwest€ProgressiveÐ ¨+ø&* ÐEnterprises,€Inc.€and€Ô_ÔShriÔ_Ô„Hari€Hospitality,€LLC,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ t-Ä(, Ðnecessary.Ð @/*. ÐÓÓÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ð Ø2(.2 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.Ð ¾3/3 ÐÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ð p6À16 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€€Ð V7¦27 ÐÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ð :X5: Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€Ô_ÔJUDGEÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ î:>6; ÐÌà@êê.êàÔ_Ôò òó óÔ_ÔˆÌ