WPC 5٩KQ3G1q΢rӺ\u&vY{uZц:.zA:tq(7<; gvؠ#A,$XQn$k4‚=brFjdhSH<6ޘOC(ꮏ89Š CfEڤIֆ&eM OAAMmt}6qo=N T~P`w.Bo0>Y|>P,,Ծ?c+筝[Տ"+] :5Q+}uUp .5jɂʏw-]r1Ofa9mM}kjPҊriҙ0dZ M4 ^p'^ qlCAgkCGKZ|;Bu8ɟ)%E?& oaD;rlL鵰mcGJm&cL7q.L#%)# >UNI % 0(4w@@0 0lp 0D> UN^   Z U:U:           AQZ B 0D 0D  0DPP D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLB0nLL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($n~<$)i)3|x geUUӀ 6  $    1    Rule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion.(b) Thecourt,with  concurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.((3$ !      0  (#$  0   4  $    1    Rule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion.(b) Thecourt,with  concurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheacitonsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINOIN,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $    2    Althoughtheyareseparateentities,ThomsonandCPIareownedbythesamepersons  andoperateunderthesameroof.  $    3    MostoftheinvoiceswereaccompaniedbyshippingticketsbearingthesignatureofMr.  Burczakoroneofhisemployees.  $    4    Duringclosingarguments,counselforMr.BurczakstatedthattheCPIchargesarenotin  dispute.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !"  X}XXX(XX}   Ad FILEDX}X(  July27,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,yAZ"Arial Regular !"  X}XXX(XX}   Ad FILEDX}X(  July26,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,yAZ"Arial Regular!"#%C<< C d(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxdP Pd 'dxd !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T 7XdXXd7r(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx0 rr(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx0 rt(>.*jx^` `@E&` ttx0^ tߛ@d d INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,@jj%ATJACKSON   @:: _________________________________________________________________ ',XXX'THOMSONANDTHOMSONand   )  GibsonCountyChanceryCourt . ~  CONSTRUCTIONPRODUCTS,INC.   )  No.H3837  d   )̀Plaintiffs/Appellants.  )    0   )  C.A.No.02A019807CH00188    VS.  )        )  HON.GEORGER.ELLIS,    RUSSBURCZAK,d/b/aBURCZAK   )  CHANCELLOR x   PAVEMENT ,  ) ^    )  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  D  ЀDefendant/Appellee.  ) *z    )  OPINIONFILED: `  JesseH.Ford,III, FORD&MAYO,Jackson,Tennessee,forPlaintiffs/Appellants. ,  L.L.Harrell,Jr., HARRELL&HARRELL,Trenton,TennesseeforDefendant/Appellee.  ______________________________________________________________________________@! MEMORANDUMOPINION    #  1       @ ______________________________________________________________________________    Farmer,J.  ( 6,X` XX,XX60,X` X,XX0Ӝ XXXX   ` InthisactionfiledagainstDefendantRussBurczakforamountsdueunderaccounts   maintainedbythePlaintiffs,thetrialcourtawarded$2,227.07toPlaintiffThomsonandThomson( Thomson)and$2,734.00toPlaintiffConstructionProducts,Inc.( CPI).ThomsonandCPIappealtheamountofthejudgments,arguingthatthetrialcourterredwithrespecttoitscalculationoftheamountofcreditthatMr.BurczakshouldhavereceivedforsubcontractingworkthatheperformedforThomson.Becausetheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthiscalculation,weaffirmtherulingofthetrialcourt. ` Mr.Burczakisapavingcontractor.In1991,hebeganpurchasingmaterialssuchasasphalt,gravel,slag,sealer,andpaintfromThomson.Initially,Mr.Burczakeitherpaidforthematerialsatthetimeofpurchaseorsettledhisaccountonaweeklybasis.Eventually,however,Mr. 2-3 Burczakmaintainedan openaccountwithThomson.In1995,Mr.BurczakbeganworkingasasubcontractorforThomson.Thepartiesdidnotenterintoawrittenagreementregardingthissubcontractingarrangement.InsteadofmakingpaymentsdirectlytoMr.Burczakforthesubcontractingworkthatheperformed,Thomsoncreditedhisaccount. ` AdisputesubsequentlyaroseregardingthebalanceofMr.Burczaksaccount.Consequently,ThomsonfiledacomplaintagainstMr.Burczakseeking$25,822.04indamages.CPIsubsequentlyfiledanamendedcomplaintseeking$2,734.70indamages.Mr.BurczakthenfiledananswerandcountercomplaintseekingdamagesequaltotheamountbywhichthevalueofthesubcontractingworkthatheperformedexceededthevalueofthematerialsthathereceivedfromThomson.Byconsent,thetrialcourtenteredanorderconsolidatingtheclaimsofThomsonandCPIfortrial.  #  2      ׀ t  ` Attrial,Thomsonproducedinvoicesindicatingthat,afterreceivinga$13,235.76creditfortheperformanceofsubcontractingwork,thebalanceofMr.Burczaksaccountwas$25,822.04.\  #  3      ׀CPIproducedadditionalinvoicestotaling$2,734.75.  #  4      ׀Finally,Mr.Burczakproduced  invoiceslistingatotalof$47,020.00inchargesforthesubcontractingworkthatheperformed.Attheconclusionofthetrial,thecourtfoundthatMr.Burczakowes$32,354.95toThomsonand$2,734.70toCPIformaterialsthathepurchasedfromthesecompanies.Additionally,thecourtfoundthatThomsonowes$30,127.88toMr.Burczakforthesubcontractingworkthatheperformed.Consistentwiththisruling,thetrialcourtenteredanorderawarding$2,227.07toThomsonand$2,734.00toCPI. ` Onappeal,thepartiesconcedethatMr.BurczakwasentitledtoacreditequaltothereasonablevalueofthesubcontractingworkthatheperformedforThomson.Withrespecttothiscredit,thecourtstatedasfollows: 1,2 8 ` BothpartiesagreethatThomsonandThomsonoweBurczakPavementsfortheworkthatwasdone.Absentacontracttothecontrary,anindividualisentitledtosethisownpriceforworkthatheperforms.TheproofshowedthatMattThomsonallowedthatthepaymentsshouldbe$13,235.76,buthehadnodocumentationofthesame,exceptExhibit5.RussBurczakexplainedeachjobandwhyinsomecasesitturnedouttobemorethanwasexpected. ` x` x 8 `  TheCourt,therefore,findsthatanequitablesettlementofthedisputedamountis$30,127.88. ` x` x Thetrialcourtscommentthat [a]bsentacontracttothecontrary,anindividualisentitledtosethisownpriceforworkthatheperformsistechnicallycorrect.Wenote,however,thatalthoughtheindividualmaybeentitledtosethisownprice,heisnotnecessarilyentitledtorecoverthisamountasdamagesinasubsequentactionforfailuretopayforservicesrendered.Rather,hemustprovethatthispriceisequaltothereasonablevalueoftheworkthatheperformed.Intheinstantcase,Mr.BurczaktestifiedthattheamountsthathechargedThomsonforthesubcontractingworkwerefairandreasonablefortheservicesthatherendered.ThereasonablevalueofMr.Burczaksservicesisaquestionoffactrequiringthetrialcourttoevaluatethecredibilityofwitnesses.Thetrialcourtobservedthemanneranddemeanorofthewitnessesandthuswasinthebestpositiontoevaluatetheircredibility.UnderTennesseelaw,thefindingsofatrialcourtregardingissuesinvolvingwitnesscredibilityareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937  +p&) S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996).Consistentwiththisrule,findingsofatrialcourtregardingquestionsoffactareentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectnessandmaynotbereversedunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See T.R.A.P.13(d).Intheinstantcase,wefind 0,/ thattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsruling.  :p59  ` Forthereasonssetforthabove,therulingofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.ThecostsofthisappealaretaxedonehalfeachtoThomsonandCPI,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. `     h     ____________________________________ `     h     FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________HIGHERS,J.(Concurs)#XXX X #