ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 0(¡4ÉÝ 0—ì 0Dƒ 0JÇ  0T we 0^u 0hÓ 0r; 0|­ 0†) 0¯ 1u? U,´ 0dà U,DU*pB)šDCà AMàSã3ãv~ùvÓw BJ D3g 0@š AOÚÆ) 0Dï D/3 Bb˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡nnG 3|xŠ(G(2*²$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€òhÆòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó€Š2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌMarch€15,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€damage€clause€provides€in€part,€"[I]f€the€unpaid€balance€of€the€Contract€Sum€exceeds€theÏexpense€of€finishing€the€work,€such€excess€shall€be€paid€to€the€Contractor,€but€if€such€expense€exceedsÏthe€unpaid€balance,€the€Contractor€shall€pay€the€difference€to€the€Owner."€€Ì ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€difference€in€the€amounts€recovered€by€Young€is€due€to€the€fact€that€there€were€defects€inÏBrown's€installation€of€the€carpet,€hardwood,€and€tile€flooring.€€The€trial€court€held€that€these€deficienciesÏmerited€an€offset€against€the€amount€that€the€Popes€owed€to€Young.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€GÖXXdædÈ7Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌDOUGLAS€B.€YOUNG€d/b/aà àà à)ÌCITY€TILE,€€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€Rutherford€Chancery€No.€90CV„297Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9508„CH„00343Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|Åû•` ç `€€LßJAMES€BROWN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Cross„à àà àò ò)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌò òJIMMY€C.€POPE,€and€wife,à àà à)ÌJANICE€E.€POPE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Cross„à àà àò ò)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellants.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MURFREESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌò òPATRICK€J.€MCHALEÌó óBrentwood,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òROYCE€TAYLORÌó óMurfreesboro,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€James€BrownÌÌÌò òRICK€G.€MANSFIELDÌó óMurfreesboro,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Douglas€Young€d/b/a€City€TileÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€Sr.€J.ó óÌÌÌà àÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiff,€Douglas€B.€Young,€d/b/a€City€Tile,€sued€the€defendants,€Jimmy€andÏÑ7€GÖXXdæXXdæ7ÑJanice€Pope,€and€their€contractor,€James€Brown,€to€recover€the€balance€due€onÏmaterials€furnished€for€the€construction€of€the€Popes'€home€and€to€enforce€aÏmechanic's€€lien€on€the€Popes'€property.€€Brown€cross„claimed€against€the€Popes€forÏthe€balance€allegedly€due€on€the€construction€contract.€€Following€a€hearing€on€theÏmatter,€the€trial€court€entered€judgment€in€favor€of€Young€against€Brown€in€the€amountÏof€$6,457.52,€held€that€the€Popes€were€jointly€and€severally€liable€to€Young€forÏ$4,948.30,€and€held€that€the€Popes€were€liable€to€Brown€for€$7,250.00.€€The€PopesÏhave€appealed,€alleging€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€calculating€damages.€€For€theÏreasons€stated€below,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€Factsó óÌÌà àThe€basic€facts€are€largely€undisputed.€€On€January€8,€1989,€the€Popes€enteredÏinto€a€contract€with€Brown€for€the€construction€of€a€house.€€The€contract€price€wasÏ$76,000.00,€which€was€to€be€paid€in€four€installments„„the€first€to€be€paid€when€BrownÏcompleted€the€foundation,€the€second€to€be€paid€upon€completion€of€the€framing€andÍthe€roof,€the€third€to€be€paid€upon€completion€of€the€outside€doors€and€windows,€andÏthe€last€to€be€paid€upon€completion€of€construction.€€The€contract€did€not€specify€theÏtime€by€which€the€house€was€to€be€completed.€€Rather,€the€contract€provided€that€theÏ"contractor€agrees€to€use€due€diligence€in€the€completion€of€the€work€within€aÏreasonable€amount€of€time."€€€The€contract€also€afforded€to€the€Popes€the€right€toÏterminate€the€contract€upon€thirty€days'€written€notice€to€Brown€in€the€event€that€BrownÏfailed€to€perform€under€the€contract.€€€The€stipulated€damage€clause€provided€that€ifÏBrown€did€not€perform€under€the€contract,€the€Popes€could€complete€or€rectify€theÏdeficiencies€and€deduct€the€cost€from€any€payment€due€to€Brown.× ƒ% ××  ×€€€€Brown€wasÏobligated€under€the€contract€to€furnish€all€materials€and€labor€necessary€forÏconstruction.€€€An€addendum€to€the€contract€allowed€the€Popes€to€select€items€for€theÏhouse€such€as€carpet,€lighting,€flooring,€wallpaper,€and€cabinets.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Brown€claimed€that€a€reasonable€time€for€completion€of€the€house€wouldÏhave€been€about€four€months.€€€Mr.€Pope€testified€that€Brown€said€that€it€would€takeÏabout€three€months.€€Brown€began€construction€in€April€of€1989.€€€Initially,€Brown'sÏwork€on€the€house€progressed€well.€In€accordance€with€the€contract,€the€Popes€paidÏseveral€installments€to€Brown.€€In€September€of€1989,€however,€the€Popes€began€toÏhave€concerns€about€the€delay€in€progress€of€the€construction.€€€€As€of€September€2,Ï1989,€the€Popes€had€paid€$55,000.00€to€Brown.ÌÌà àThe€Popes€told€Brown€that€they€would€not€pay€him€any€further€installments€untilÍthe€house€was€complete.€€€Brown€stated€that€as€of€August€1,€1992,€the€house€was€two„thirds€complete€and€he€had€been€paid€about€three„fourths€of€the€contract€price.€€BrownÏtestified€that€at€the€time€he€ceased€working€on€the€house,€it€was€97%€complete.€€InÏaccordance€with€the€contract,€on€January€13,€1990,€the€Popes€gave€Brown€30„days'Ïwritten€notice€that€they€were€terminating€the€contract€because€Brown€failed€to€completeÏthe€work€within€a€reasonable€amount€of€time€and€because€there€existed€other€defectsÏin€Brown's€performance.€€The€Popes€terminated€the€contract€approximately€nineÏmonths€after€construction€commenced.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€Popes€made€efforts€to€employ€another€contractor€to€complete€theÏhouse,€they€were€unable€to€do€so.€€€Consequently,€the€Popes€undertook€to€completeÏthe€house.€€€They€purchased€and€installed€several€items,€including€railing,€coating€andÏsealant€on€the€basement,€water€pipes,€lighting€fixtures,€wallpaper,€steps,€and€a€heatÏand€air„conditioning€system.€€€The€Popes€documented€the€sums€they€had€expended,Ïwhich€totalled€approximately€$14,500.00.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€expert€witnesses€testified€on€behalf€of€both€parties€as€to€the€cost€ofÏcompletion.€€Brown's€expert€was€Leonard€Norris,€who€stated€that€the€cost€ofÏcompletion€could€be€as€much€as€$6,100.00.€€Dan€Ross,€who€testified€for€the€Popes,Ïstated€that€the€cost€of€completion€would€be€approximately€$9,575.€00.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ultimately€held€that€Young€was€entitled€to€recover€$5,238.10,€plusÏinterest,€from€Brown€because€Brown€acknowledged€his€liability€to€Young.€€The€lowerÏcourt€also€held€that€the€Popes€were€jointly€and€severally€liable€to€Young€in€the€amountÍof€$4,012.00,× ƒ& ××  ×€€and€entered€a€mechanic's€and€materialmen's€lien€against€the€Popes'Ïproperty€€to€secure€the€indebtedness.€€€The€court€found€as€fact€that€"Mr.€Brown€spent€farÏlonger€on€the€construction€than€was€reasonable."€€€The€chancellor€further€stated€in€hisÏopinion€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€testimony€as€to€the€amounts€necessary€to€complete€the€home€rangeÏfrom€a€high€of€$9,575€estimated€by€Dan€Ross€down€to€less€than€$2,000Ïsuggested€by€Mr.€Brown€in€his€testimony.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Pope€presentedÏproof€that€they€had€expended€some€$9,909.64€prior€to€1991,€and€thenÏanother€$1,629.57....Considering€all€of€the€proof,€the€Court€finds€that€theÏoriginal€contract€price€was€$76,000,€but€from€this€sum€of€$3,5000€shouldÏbe€deducted,€that€price€representing€the€allowance€for€air€conditioningÏand€heating€which€the€parties€agreed€would€be€installed€by€Mr.€Pope.€ÏFurther,€the€Court€finds€that€$55,000€had€been€paid€toward€the€contractÏprice,€leaving€a€remaining€balance€of€$17,500€owed€on€the€contract.€ÏNoting€the€large€amount€of€money€expended€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Pope€onÏthe€residence,€some€of€which€appear€to€have€been€contemplated€by€theÏoriginal€contract,€and€some€outside€the€scope€of€the€contract,€and€furtherÏresolving€the€issues€of€reasonableness€and€necessity,€the€Court€findsÏthat€$6,250€of€the€sums€expended€by€Mr.€Pope€should€further€beÏsubtracted€from€the€sums€owed€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Pope€to€Mr.€Brown....[I]tÏfurther€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€sum€of€$4,000€is€further€necessaryÏfor€the€completion€of€the€residence.€€Thus,€it€appears€that€Mr.€Brown€isÏentitled€to€recover€the€sum€of€$7,250€from€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Pope....€ÌÌÓÓFinally,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€Popes€were€not€entitled€to€any€incidental€orÏconsequential€damages.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€from€this€judgment€that€the€Popes€appeal.€€They€have€stated€the€issues€forÏour€consideration€as€follows:€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€calculating€damages€andÏadjusting€the€financial€obligations€among€the€parties,€specifically€in€the€followingÏrespects:€€(a)€€the€cost€of€completion€of€the€Pope€residence;€(b)€the€amounts€owing€toÏoriginal€Plaintiff€Douglas€Young€d/b/a€City€Tile€and€the€source€of€such€payment;€(c)Íincidental€and€consequential€damages.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€Cost€of€Completionó óÌÌà àThe€evidence€at€trial€regarding€the€cost€of€completion€ranged€from€Brown'sÏestimate€of€$2,175.00€to€the€Popes'€expenditures€of€$14,500.00.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€some€of€the€Popes'€expenditures€were€outside€the€scope€of€the€contract€withÏBrown.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€took€the€contract€price€of€$76,000€and€subtractedÏfrom€that€$3,500.00€for€the€cost€of€the€heat€and€air„conditioning,€$6,250.00,Ïrepresenting€part€of€the€sums€expended€by€the€Popes,€and€$4,000.00,€which€the€courtÏfound€to€be€the€cost€of€completion.€€These€calculations€left€the€Popes€withÏindebtedness€to€Young€in€the€amount€of€$7,250.00.ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€of€this€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€in€this€case€concerning€the€cost€of€completion€was€contradictory.€ÏThus,€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€was€of€great€significance€in€this€case.€€On€mattersÏturning€upon€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€this€Court€will€afford€great€weight€to€the€trialÏjudge's€determination€because€he€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€andÏdemeanor€of€the€witnesses€as€they€testified.€€òòBalsinger€v.€Town€of€Madisonvilleóó,€435ÏS.W.€2d€803,€807€(Tenn.€1968).ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€foregoing€testimony,€it€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court'sÏassessment€of€the€costs€of€completion€was€well€within€the€scope€of€the€evidenceÏsubmitted€at€trial.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€contrary€to€thisÏassessment.€€The€trial€court's€judgment€was€both€reasonable€and€supported€by€theÏevidence.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€Mechanic's€Lienó óÌÌà àà àThe€Popes€contend€that€they€owe€no€financial€obligation€to€YoungÏbecause€the€contract€specified€that€Brown€was€liable€to€all€material€suppliers.ÌÌà àòòTennessee€Code€Annotatedóó€ðð€66„11„115(a)€provides€in€pertinent€part€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€Every€journeyman€or€other€person€contracted€with€or€employed€toÏwork€on€the€buildings,€fixtures,€machinery,€or€improvements,€or€to€furnishÏmaterials€for€the€same,€whether€such€journeyman,€furnisher€or€otherÏperson€was€employed€or€contracted€with€by€the€person€who€originallyÏcontracted€with€the€owner€of€the€premises,€or€by€an€immediate€or€remoteÏsubcontractor€acting€under€contract€with€the€original€contractor,€or€anyÏsubcontractor,€shall€have€this€lien€for€such€work€or€material;€provided,Ïthat€the€subcontractor,€laborer€or€materialman€satisfies€all€of€theÏrequirements€set€forth€in€ðð€66„11„145,€if€applicable.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€66„11„115€(1993).ÌÌà àIt€has€long€been€the€rule€in€Tennessee€that€if€a€materialman€complies€with€theÏstatutory€requirements,€he€is€entitled€to€a€lien€on€the€property€of€an€owner€who€hasÏcontracted€for€construction€with€a€contractor€to€whom€the€materialman€has€furnishedÏmaterials€for€the€structure.€€òòBain„Nicodemus,€Inc.€v.€Bethayóó,€292€S.W.€2d€234,€241Í(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1953).€€There€is€no€requirement€of€a€contract€between€the€owner€andÏthe€subcontractor€in€order€for€the€materialman€to€possess€such€a€lien.€€òòMcCrary€Bros.€v.ÏBristol€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€97€Tenn.€469,€37€S.W.€543€(1896);€òòReeves€v.€Hendersonóó,€90ÏTenn.€521,€18€S.W.€242€(1891).ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€Young€satisfactorily€complied€with€the€statutoryÏrequirements€necessary€to€establish€a€mechanic's€lien.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit€and€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€imposition€of€a€lien€on€the€Popes'€property.€€TheÏPopes€assumed€no€personal€liability€for€the€cost€of€the€materials€supplied€by€Young.€ÏHowever,€Brown€conceded€that€he€was€contractually€obligated€to€pay€for€all€materialsÏfurnished€in€the€construction€of€the€house.€€Consequently,€we€hold€that€the€Popes€areÏnot€personally€liable€to€Young,€but€rather,€are€liable€only€to€the€extent€of€theÏmaterialman's€lien.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€Consequential€Damagesó ó€ÌÌà àThe€Popes€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€electing€not€to€award€to€themÏconsequential€damages.€€The€Popes€testified€that€they€borrowed€money€in€an€attemptÏto€complete€construction€of€the€house,€and€they€seek€to€have€this€Court€award€themÏeither€interest€on€the€money€that€they€borrowed€or€sums€representing€the€rental€valueÏof€the€house€that€they€were€unable€to€rent€because€Brown€did€not€completeÏconstruction.€€Ìà àÌà àConsequential€damages€are€special€damages€and€are€recoverable€if€they€areÍreasonably€shown€to€have€been€within€the€contemplation€of€the€parties€at€the€time€theÏcontract€was€executed.€€òòTennessee€Fertilizer€Co.€v.€International€Agricultural€Corp.óó,Ï146€Tenn.€451,€243€S.W.€81€(1921).€€In€the€present€case,€the€contract€contained€aÏstipulated€damages€clause,€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf€the€Contractor€defaults€or€neglects€to€carry€out€the€work€inÏaccordance€with€the€Contract€Documents€or€fails€to€performÏany€provision€of€the€Contract,€the€Owner€may,€after€thirtyÏ(30)€days€written€notice€to€the€Contractor€and€withoutÏprejudice€to€any€other€remedy€he€may€have,€make€goodÏsuch€deficiencies€and€may€deduct€the€cost€from€theÏpayment€then€or€later€due€the€Contractor...€ÌÓÓÌà àOur€task€is€thus€to€determine€whether€the€parties€contemplated€the€inclusion€ofÏconsequential€damages€within€that€clause.€€We€hold€that€based€upon€the€contractÏlanguage,€there€is€no€intent€evinced€by€the€parties€to€include€such€damages€in€theÏstipulated€damages€clause.€€ÌÌà àYoung's€request€that€this€be€declared€a€frivolous€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122€is€denied.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€is€not€an€appropriateÏcase€for€the€imposition€of€sanctions€for€a€frivolous€appeal.€€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€judgment€in€part€andÏmodify€€in€part.€€Costs€incident€to€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€appellants.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCURS:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.