ÿWPCÒ D|’ÑÀ#öÅt®K£‡TáN «ºá>Ȳ’ëÓlXÙÎŒCÚµÌÍ}…ÏÑ¯Š€¨=ñŸ¶z©LnôÚ€Õxθc‰|ÉAq¢~댂7‚2NËl Ë«3HÈñ• ÈW“å%jakäÉ^‘LÄPJ `#„Œâ’lSÑYJ³1ph£Î¬¬Ð=(ùä\Ž„?hÛ$dîW·AÚ²®f½q.]²!>¯<¾P$³ú¹úšÕ–sÍ»5:+¾8“¯n[LþU5ROOqÅšµÞ›rÔ|/ IVuÍWO{jñXÁ%’/I\Í€éêyåÈÅYï!””}å½b›°LÌ0@w¼bTo7^Q,¿KYT“,B¿[c&⨠*€â/!¸ÿ5`gŽF%_¡ æï\.¹Tãq å Sš+רÄq„?T‘xÈé‰ZÛ†Fr¾~ÄICp Y¤‰¡“"£5Gæm÷’Ö;¦ËáF2Õ‡_ç´ÝKZPá¿5ŰêÑ1©´–¶õˆRþÄu²á³¿ÎB¸êg¨P&ˆj¡Í|²_£f,—ªý}L ×nF’¤|vÜMðÑÎ¥ÇØ½bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°#Á8 Œù Ú… ^ _ zk Òå å · m¹ wÐ ÆÔ Æš Æ`Æ&4ìN 0D &FElnUN} bË ^-‹m› UN ^ f n v ~ †  Ž  ˜˜˜%¢¢¢¢¢bÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇ 0ëÏÏÏÏ Bºº 0¤× D3{ D-® 0KÛÛ AS&Æy 0¤? 0Dã A«'(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wptZ’q)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UUb)´¥¡(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó\Opinion Summary3|x(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name. Ý ƒR²$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœÂ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€property€had€suffered€ð ðnumerous€defects,€including€water€damage,€stucco€problems,€termites€and€interiorÐ ° Ðdamage.€€It€required€multiple€repairs€and€its€price€had€to€be€drastically€reduced€on€two€occasions€before€it€would€sell.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€property€ultimately€sold€.€.€.€for€only€$280,000€„€„€an€amount€far€below€its€initial€listing€price€of€$405,000.ðð cÝ ƒR²$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœÂ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòóóòòCollins€v.€Binkley,€óó750€S.W.2d€737€(Tenn.€1988);€òòóóòòÔ_ÔTarteraÔ_Ô€v.€Palumbo,€óó224€Tenn.€262,€453€S.W.2d€780Ð ° Ð(1970);€òòYoung€v.€Leader€Fed.€Ô_ÔSavÔ_Ô.€and€Loan€Ô_ÔAssððn.Ô_Ô,€Inc.,€óó1989€WL€67205€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòCosta€v.€Ô_ÔNeimonÔ_Ô,€óó366Ð tÄ ÐN.S.2d€896,€898€(Ô_ÔWis.AppÔ_Ô.€1985).2(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular4567891011 Ý ƒR²$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœÂ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔLanfordÔ_Ô€measured€and€estimated€that€the€house€has€3,337€sq.€ft.€with€a€ð ðreproduction€cost€of€newÐ ° Ðimprovementsðð€of€$59.90€per€sq.€ft.,€sitting€on€land€valued€at€$113,500.€€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô€opined€the€house€has€3,164€sq.€ft.€at€$110Ð tÄ Ðper€sq.€ft.,€sitting€on€land€valued€at€$100,000.€€Ô_ÔBallengerÔ_Ô€opined€the€house€has€3,117€sq.€ft.,€half€on€the€first€floor€andÐ 8ˆ Ðhalf€on€the€second€floor,€at€$100€per€sq.€ft.€for€the€first€floor€and€$50€per€sq.€ft.€for€the€second,€sitting€on€land€valued€atÐ üL Ð$110,000.€€€€€- ù-(|G2²$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€NÕ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô$9ò»»Ô d(|3 ü$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€NÕ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 ü$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€NÕ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W5»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼%:»»»ÔÑ8€9õXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@  "ìàAT€KNOXVILLE€€€€ˆÐ  ÐÓ  ÓOctober€6,€2000€SessionÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XyVX»¼%:ÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼%:»XXyV¶#ÔMARK€€Ô_ÔADDAMANÔ_Ô,€òòet€al.óó€€€v.€€€GWENDOLYN€€R.€Ô_ÔLANFORDÔ_ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†vÔòòóóÔ‡XyVX»¼%:Ôó óÐ ª ú ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔCircuit€Court€Ô%†åÔfor€Ô% ‡ ÔÔ_ÔLoudonÔ%† ÔCountyÔ_ÔÐ ª ú Ðà@@øøìàNo.€6215Ô% ‡! Ô€Ô%†!ŽÔÔ% ‡" Ô€€€Hon.€Russell€Simmons,€Jr.,€JudgeÔ%†"­ÔÐ – æ  ÐÌFIELD€NOVEMBER€17,€2000Ð n¾  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Y` AßÐ Zª  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔE2000„0816„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÔ%†#¯ÔÐ U¥  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<,` AßÐ -} Ðó óÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓPlaintiffs,€residential€sellers,€sued€an€appraiser€for€negligent€misrepresentation€and€breach€of€contractÐ (x Ðwhen€her€appraisal€was€far€below€the€contract€sales€price€of€their€home.€€The€sales€contract€wasÐ d Ðcontingent€upon€the€appraised€value€being€equal€at€least€to€the€sales€price.€€The€buyers€Ô%†qÔdeclined€toÐ P Ðpurchase€the€home€based€on€the€failure€of€that€contingency.€€Defendant€moved€for€a€directed€verdictÐ ì< Ðbecause€the€appraisal€was€performed€at€the€request€of€and€for€the€benefit€and€guidance€of€theÐ Ø( Ðmortgagor€and€not€the€seller,€and€because€the€sellers€did€nothing€in€reliance€upon€the€appraisal.€€TheÐ Ä ÐTrial€Court€denied€the€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€negligent€misrepresentation€theory.€€TheÐ ° Ðjury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiffs.€€Recovery€for€the€tort€of€negligent€misrepresentationÐ œì Ðrequires€that€the€information€provided€by€the€Defendant€be€given€for€the€Plaintiffsðð€benefit€andÐ ˆØ Ðguidance€and€that€the€Plaintiffs€justifiably€rely€on€that€information.€€While€Plaintiffs€were€affectedÐ tÄ Ðby€the€appraisal,€it€was€not€done€for€their€benefit€and€guidance,€and€they€did€not€justifiably€rely€uponÐ `° Ðthe€information.€€Therefore,€Plaintiffs€have€no€cause€of€action€against€the€appraiser€for€negligentÐ Lœ Ðmisrepresentation.€€The€judgment€is€reversed,€and€the€Complaint€is€dismissed.€Ð 8ˆ ÐÓ~ÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔTenn.€R.€App.€3Ô%†$ Ô;€Judgment€of€the€Ô% ‡% ÔTrial€Court€Reversed€and€Case€Dismissed.Ô%†% Ôó óÐ !`  ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼%:»àXyVš#ÔÔ‡XyVX.¼%:ÔD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòÔ% ‡& ÔHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô%†& ÔóóÐ Ô#$# Ðand€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,€joined.Ð À$ $ ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔJon€G.€Roach,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Gwendolyn€R.€Ô_ÔLanfordÔ_Ô.Ô%†é ÔÐ ˜&è!& ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†‰ÔJay€W.€Ô_ÔMaderÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Mark€and€Ô_ÔCathalenaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAddamanÔ_Ô.Ð p(À#( ÐÓd ÓÌò òÌÌOPINIONÔ#†¼%:»XXyV“ #Ôó óÐ  ,p', ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àÐ  -\(-ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ€XyVX»¼%:Ôà  àà ` àIn€1994,€Mark€and€Cathalena€Addaman€(Plaintiffs),€built€a€house€in€Millerððs€LandingÐ ° Ðsubdivision€in€Loudon€County,€Tennessee.€€€The€Addamans€intended€to€build€the€house,€live€in€itÐ œì Ðfor€a€short€time,€sell€it,€and€build€another€house.€€The€Addamans€and€their€friends€did€most€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðconstruction€labor.€€In€the€fall€of€1997,€they€decided€to€sell€the€house.€€They€set€the€offering€price€byÐ tÄ Ðasking€Mr.€Jim€Woodall,€a€local€realtor,€for€his€informal€opinion€about€the€value€of€the€home€andÐ `° Ðby€ascertaining€the€selling€price€of€a€house€two€doors€away€which€recently€had€been€sold.€€TheÐ L œ ÐAddamans€put€a€ð ðFor€Saleðð€sign€in€the€yard€and€placed€brochures€in€a€box€beside€the€sign.€€SoonÐ 8 ˆ Ðthereafter,€Mr.Woodall€contacted€the€Addamans€and€told€them€that€he€had€clients€who€wereÐ $ t Ðinterested€in€looking€at€the€house.€€After€the€Addamans€agreed€to€pay€Mr.€Woodall€a€3%€salesÐ  ` Ðcommission€if€he€sold€their€house,€he€showed€prospective€buyers€Robin€and€Jana€Whyte€theÐ ü L  ÐAddaman€property.€€Negotiations€between€the€Addamans€and€the€Whytes€ensued,€and€a€salesÐ è 8  Ðcontract€was€entered€into€on€December€23,€1997.€€That€contract€provided€that€the€Whytes€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðpurchase€the€Addamansðð€house€for€$435,900.€€The€sales€contract€was€contingent€upon€the€propertyÐ À  Ðbeing€appraised€through€the€mortgage€lender€for€the€selling€price.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Whytes€sought€a€mortgage€for€the€purchase€of€the€property€from€HomesideÐ „Ô  ÐLending€Company.€€That€company,€in€turn,€retained€Lenderððs€Service,€Inc.,€to€obtain€an€appraisalÐ pÀ Ðof€the€property.€€Lenderððs€Service,€Inc.€contacted€Ms.€Gwendolyn€Lanford€(Defendant),€a€licensedÐ \¬ Ðreal€estate€appraiser,€to€appraise€the€Addamansðð€property€for€Homeside€Lending€Company.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àMs.€Lanford€performed€an€appraisal€of€the€Addamansðð€property€after€first€obtaining€Ð  p Ðwhat€she€believed€was€the€information€necessary€to€allow€her€to€complete€her€appraisal.€€From€thisÐ  \ Ðinformation,€she€concluded€that,€in€her€professional€opinion,€the€property€probably€would€appraiseÐ øH Ðbelow€the€contract€price.€€€€Because€she€knew€that€the€potential€sale€was€contingent€upon€an€appraisalÐ ä4 Ðof€at€least€$435,900,€she€contacted€Mr.€Woodall.€€Defendant€thought€Mr.€Woodall€was€theÐ Ð  ÐAddamansðð€realtor.€€Defendant€inquired€whether€Mr.€Woodall€had€any€information€about€theÐ ¼  Ðproperty€which€would€justify€raising€her€appraisal,€which€he€did€not.€She€then€visited€the€AddamansððÐ ¨ø Ðhome€on€January€23,€1997,€to€inspect€the€house€and€take€measurements.€€She€provided€her€appraisalÐ ”ä Ðto€Lenderððs€Service€and€to€Homeside€Lending,€which€notified€the€Whytes€that€the€appraisal€was€wellÐ €Ð Ðbelow€the€contract€price.€€When€the€low€appraisal€resulted€in€their€failure€to€obtain€mortgageÐ l¼ Ðfinancing€for€the€Addaman€property,€the€Whytes€abandoned€their€contract€with€the€Addamans€andÐ X ¨ Ðpurchased€a€nearby€house€for€$450,000€within€the€next€two€weeks.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Addamans€then€hired€another€appraiser,€Mr.€Thomas€Tipton,€to€perform€a€secondÐ #l! Ðappraisal€of€their€property.€€Mr.€Tipton€appraised€the€property€as€having€a€value€of€$450,000€onÐ $X" ÐMarch€11,€1998.€€The€Addamans€filed€this€suit€against€Ms.€Lanford€on€May€4,€1998,€allegingÐ ô$D # Ðnegligent€misrepresentation€and€breach€of€contract.€€On€June€12,€1998,€the€Addamans€listed€theÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty€with€a€realtor€and€offered€it€for€sale€at€$459,900.€€When€the€case€came€to€trial€one€year€later,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€Addamans€had€not€had€another€offer€to€purchase€the€property,€and€it€was€still€for€sale.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Tipton€testified€at€trial€that€Ms.€Lanfordððs€appraisal€of€the€Addamansðð€propertyÐ )à$( Ðdoes€not€accurately€represent€the€value€of€the€property€and€is€below€the€standard€of€care€forÐ |*Ì%) Ðresidential€appraisers€in€Loudon€County,€Tennessee.€€He€described€a€number€of€factors€which€ledÐ h+¸&* Ðhim€to€this€opinion.€€For€instance,€Ms.€Lanford€compared€the€Addaman€property€to€property€whichÐ ° Ðwas€sold€under€distress€circumstances.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€also€used€property€that€is€not€in€a€restricted€subdivisionÐ œì Ðand€property€that€is€fourteen€miles€from€the€Addamansðð€property.€€Mr.€Tipton€testified€that€theÐ ˆØ ÐFederal€National€Mortgage€Association€Guidelines€require€that€appraisers€use€comparable€propertyÐ tÄ Ðthat€is€located€within€one€mile€and€in€the€same€subdivision€as€the€property€being€appraised.€€Mr.Ð `° ÐTipton€further€testified€that€the€lender,€the€buyer€and€the€seller€all€rely€on€a€competent€appraisal€inÐ L œ Ðorder€to€conduct€the€desired€sales€and€mortgage€transaction.à È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àAnother€licensed€appraiser,€Mr.€G.€T.€Ballenger,€Jr.,€performed€an€appraisal€of€theÐ  ` ÐAddamansðð€property€for€trial€at€Ms.€Lanfordððs€request.€€Mr.€Ballenger€opined€that€the€subjectÐ ü L  Ðproperty€had€a€value€of€$380,000.€€Mr.€Ballenger€used€two€houses€in€the€same€subdivision€and€aÐ è 8  Ðthird€house€which€is€two€miles€away€as€comparable€properties€for€appraisal€purposes.׃)Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÔ$  ÐÌà  àà ` àMs.€Judy€Massey,€a€licensed€realtor€with€Realty€Executives€Associates€and€a€certifiedÐ ¬ü  Ðresidential€specialist,€testified€at€trial€that€she€is€ranked€number€30€of€1,800€realtors€in€the€KnoxvilleÐ ˜è  Ðarea€in€terms€of€number€of€houses€sold.€€She€sold€a€house€within€five€miles€of€the€Addaman€house,Ð „Ô  Ðon€lakefront€property,€for€$459,000.€€She€is€familiar€with€the€real€estate€market€in€the€MillerððsÐ pÀ ÐLanding€subdivision.€She€knows€that€two€houses€near€the€Addamansðð€house€sold€for€$423,890€andÐ \¬ Ð$485,000.€€On€January€12,€1998,€she€listed€the€Addamansðð€house€at€$459,900.€€When€the€house€hadÐ H˜ Ðnot€sold€by€September€22,€1998,€the€offering€price€was€reduced€to€$449,900.€€At€the€time€of€trial,Ð 4„ Ðin€July€1999,€the€offering€price€had€just€been€reduced€to€$429,900.€€She€opined€that€the€offering€priceÐ  p Ðof€the€house€was€decreasing€because€the€exterior€is€covered€with€synthetic€stucco€and€recently€thereÐ  \ Ðhave€been€some€problems€with€that€type€of€exterior.€€When€the€Addamans€entered€into€the€contractÐ øH Ðwith€the€Whytes,€however,€the€problems€with€exterior€synthetic€stucco€houses€were€not€commonlyÐ ä4 Ðknown€and€should€not€have€affected€the€appraisal€value€of€the€home.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€denied€Ms.€Lanfordððs€motion€to€dismiss€and€the€case€was€tried€beforeÐ ¨ø Ða€jury€on€July€12th€and€13th,€1999.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€Ms.€Lanfordððs€motion€for€directedÐ ”ä Ðverdict€on€the€issue€of€breach€of€contract€but€overruled€her€motion€for€directed€verdict€on€the€issueÐ €Ð Ðof€negligent€misrepresentation.€€The€jury€rendered€a€verdict€against€Ms.€Lanford€for€negligentÐ l¼ Ðmisrepresentation€and€awarded€the€Addamans€damages€in€the€amount€of€$19,770.€€The€AddamansÐ X ¨ Ðwere€also€were€awarded€their€discretionary€costs.€€Ms.€Lanford€appeals.Ð D!” ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionˆÐ #l! Їà  àà ` àóóó óMs.€Lanfordððs€issue€on€appeal,€as€restated€for€clarity€by€this€Court,€is€whether€theÐ ° ÐTrial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€her€Motion€for€a€Directed€Verdict€on€the€negligentÐ œì Ðmisrepresentation€claim.€€Ms.€Lanford€argues€that€the€Addamansðð€claim€should€have€been€dismissedÐ ˆØ Ð(1)€because€the€representations€she€made€concerning€the€value€of€the€Addamansðð€property€wereÐ tÄ Ðopinions,€not€facts;€(2)€because€her€appraisal€was€done€solely€for€the€benefit€and€guidance€ofÐ `° ÐHomeside€Leasing€and€not€€the€Addamans;€(3)€the€Addamans€failed€to€prove€they€justifiably€reliedÐ L œ Ðupon€that€appraisal;€and€(4)€because€the€Addamans€failed€to€prove€that€her€appraisal€was€false€or€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðshe€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€care.€€Ms.€Lanford€also€challenges€the€Trial€Courtððs€award€ofÐ $ t Ðdiscretionary€costs€to€the€Addamans.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€standard€of€review€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€decision€on€the€Motion€for€DirectedÐ è 8  ÐVerdict€is€well„settled.€€A€directed€verdict€is€appropriate€only€when€the€evidence€is€susceptible€toÐ Ô$  Ðbut€one€conclusion.€€òòEaton€v.€McLain,€óó891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€òòLong€v.€Mattingly,óó€797Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€€889,€892€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€We€must€ð ðtake€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€favoring€the€opponent€of€the€motion.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€addition,€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favorÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€opponent€of€the€motion€must€be€allowed,€and€all€evidence€contrary€to€the€opponentððs€positionÐ „Ô  Ðmust€be€disregarded.€€òòState€Farm€General€Ins.€Co.€v.€Wood,€óó1€S.W.3d€658,€663€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð pÀ Ð1999)€(quoting€òòEaton,€óó891€S.W.2d€at€590;€òòLong,€óó797€S.W.2d€at€892).€€Applying€these€standards,€weÐ \¬ Ðmust€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€favoring€the€Addamans€and€disregard€allÐ H˜ Ðevidence€contrary€to€the€Addamansðð€position.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€elements€of€the€tort€of€negligent€misrepresentation€are€described€in€Section€552Ð  \ Ðof€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts:Ð øH ÐÌà8  à(1)à0` Ð Ð àOne€who,€in€the€course€of€his€business,€profession€or€employment,€or€in€anyÐ Ð  Ðother€transaction€in€which€he€has€a€pecuniary€interest,€supplies€falseÐ ¼  Ðinformation€for€the€guidance€of€others€in€their€business€transactions,€isÐ ¨ø Ðsubject€to€liability€for€pecuniary€loss€caused€to€them€by€their€justifiableÐ ”ä Ðreliance€upon€this€information,€if€he€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€orÐ €Ð Ðcompetence€in€obtaining€or€communicating€the€information.Ðl¼` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)à0` Ð Ð àExcept€as€stated€in€Subsection€(3),€the€liability€stated€in€Subsection€(1)€isÐ D!” Ðlimited€to€loss€sufferedÐ0"€ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð à(a)à0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àby€the€person€or€one€of€a€limited€group€of€persons€for€whose€benefitÐ $X" Ðand€guidance€he€intends€to€supply€the€information€or€knows€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðrecipient€intends€to€supply€it;€and€Ðà%0!$¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)à0¸ ` x` xàthrough€reliance€upon€it€in€a€transaction€that€he€intends€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinformation€to€influence€or€knows€that€the€recipient€so€intendsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðor€in€a€substantially€similar€transaction.Ð)à$(¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐòòRobinson€v.€Omer,€óó952€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€552Ð ° Ðâ â(1977)).€€There€need€not€be€contractual€privity€between€the€plaintiff€and€defendant€as€long€as€theÐ œì Ðfollowing€criteria€are€met:Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€defendant€is€acting€in€the€course€of€his€business,Ð `° Ðprofession,€or€employment,€or€in€a€transaction€in€which€he€hasÐ L œ Ða€pecuniary€(as€opposed€to€gratuitous)€interest;€andÐ8 ˆ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€defendant€supplies€faulty€information€meant€to€guideÐ  ` Ðothers€in€their€business€transactions;€andÐü L ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€defendant€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€obtainingÐ Ô$  Ðand€communicating€the€information;€and€€ÐÀ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€plaintiff€justifiably€relies€upon€the€information.Ð˜è ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòId.€óó(citing€òòJohn€Martin€Co.€v.€Morse/Diesel,€Inc.,€óó819€S.W.2d€428,€431€(Tenn.€1991)).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àTaking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€in€favor€of€the€Addamans,€and€disregarding€allÐ H˜ Ðevidence€to€the€contrary,€the€testimony€of€the€Addamans€shows€that€they€ð ðunderstood€Ms.€LanfordððsÐ 4„ Ðappraisal€to€benefit€themselves€as€well€as€the€Whytes€and€the€lender€and€.€.€.€relied€on€the€appraisalÐ  p Ðto€guide€them€through€the€sale€of€their€home.ðð€An€appraiser€and€a€realtor€testified€that€sellers€relyÐ  \ Ðon€the€prospective€mortgagorððs€appraisal€in€order€to€sell€their€residence.€€Further,€there€is€materialÐ øH Ðevidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€Defendant€failed€to€comply€with€theÐ ä4 Ðapplicable€standard€of€care€in€the€performance€of€her€appraisal.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€proof,€however,€falls€far€short€of€establishing€the€element€of€justifiable€relianceÐ ¨ø Ðas€contemplated€by€the€Restatement.€€Indeed,€the€cases€relied€upon€by€the€Addamans׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€involve€theÐ ”ä Ðissue€of€justifiable€reliance€of€òòbuyersóó,€and€in€those€cases,€the€buyers€did€something,€i.e.,€theyÐ €Ð Ðpurchased€real€property,€in€reliance€upon€the€representations€of€professionals€as€to€that€propertyððsÐ l¼ Ðtitle€or€value.€€This€Court€considered€a€factually€similar€situation€in€òòMcGaugh€v.€Galbreath,€óó996Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€In€that€case,€Mr.€Galbreath€sued€a€bank€and€its€attorney,€Mr.Ð D!” ÐLawless,€who€gave€an€inaccurate€title€opinion€concerning€real€property€which€Mr.€Galbreath€wasÐ 0"€  Ðattempting€to€sell€to€€Mr.€McGaugh.€€We€upheld€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€Mr.€Galbreathððs€suitÐ #l! Ðfor€negligent€misrepresentation€against€the€bank€and€its€attorney€because€Mr.€Galbreath€failed€toÐ $X" Ðprove€that€he€justifiably€relied€on€the€title€opinion:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€problem€here€is€that€Mr.€Galbreath€is€not€the€right€plaintiff€for€aÐ Ì&"% Ðnegligent€misrepresentation€claim.€€Certainly€Mr.€Lawless€was€actingÐ ¸'#& Ðin€the€course€of€his€profession€as€an€attorney€in€advising€the€Bank€andÐ ° Ðtherefore€Mr.€McGaugh€about€the€clouded€title.€€Assuming€that€thisÐ œì Ðadvice€was€ð ðfaulty€informationðð€and€that€Mr.€Lawless€failed€toÐ ˆØ Ðexercise€reasonable€care€in€obtaining€it,€it€was€not€given€for€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐGalbreathððs€benefit€nor€did€he€do€anything€in€reliance€on€this€advice.€Ð `° ÐThe€supreme€court€noted€that€when€courts€have€allowed€non„clientsÐ L œ Ðto€recover€under€the€theory€of€negligent€misrepresentation,€it€has€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðsituations€where€ð ðthe€advice€was€given€òòfor€the€guidance€of€theÐ $ t Ðplaintiffs€óóin€the€course€of€the€real€estate€transaction€and€reliance€uponÐ  ` Ðthat€advice€was€justifiable€and€foreseeable.ðð€€òòRobinson€v.€Omer,€óó952Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòCollins€v.€Binkley,€óó750€S.W.2dÐ è 8  Ð737€(Tenn.€1988);€òòStinson€v.€Brand,€óó738€S.W.2d€186€(Tenn.€1987)).€Ð Ô$  ÐWhile€Mr.€Galbreath€may€have€been€òòaffected,óó€he€did€not€òòð ðjustifiablyÐ À  Ðrelyóó€upon€the€informationðð€and€therefore€cannot€recover€against€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐLawless€under€a€theory€of€negligent€misrepresentation.€(EmphasisÐ ˜è  Ðadded.)Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓMcGaugh€v.€Galbreath,€óó996€S.W.2d€186,€192€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Ð \¬ ÐÓÓà  àà ` àLike€the€title€opinion€in€òòMcGaugh,óó€the€appraisal€in€this€case€was€obtained€for€theÐ 4„ Ðbenefit€and€guidance€of€the€mortgagor€and€not€the€sellers€„€€the€Addamans.€€Even€assuming€that€theÐ  p Ðappraisal€was€negligently€performed,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€Addamans€took€anyÐ  \ Ðaction,€or€refrained€from€taking€any€action,€in€reliance€upon€the€appraisal.€€Even€though€theyÐ øH Ðcertainly€were€affected€by€the€appraisal,€the€appraisal€was€not€performed€for€their€benefit€andÐ ä4 Ðguidance,€and€they€did€not€do€anything€in€reliance€on€it.€€The€exact€same€outcome,€no€sale€to€theÐ Ð  ÐWhytes,€€would€have€occurred€whether€or€not€the€Addamans€ever€knew€the€information€and€opinionÐ ¼  Ðcontained€in€Defendantððs€appraisal.€€Whether€the€Addamans€knew€the€value€placed€by€DefendantÐ ¨ø Ðon€their€property€would€in€no€way€have€affected€whether€or€not€the€sale€proceeded.€€The€apprisalÐ ”ä Ðnever€was€given€for€the€guidance€of€the€Addamans.€€The€Addamans€never€did€anything€in€relianceÐ €Ð Ðon€this€appraisal.€€As€in€òòMcGaughóó,€the€Plaintiffs€ð ðmay€have€been€affected€.€.€.[but€they]€did€notÐ l¼ Ðððjustifiably€rely€upon€the€informationðð€and€therefore€cannot€recover€.€.€.€under€a€theory€of€negligentÐ X ¨ Ðmisrepresentation.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€hold€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€Ms.€Lanfordððs€motionÐ #l! Ðfor€a€directed€verdict.€€As€Ms.€Lanford€is€now€the€prevailing€party€in€this€case,€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ $X" Ðaward€of€discretionary€costs€to€the€Addamans€is€reversed€pursuant€to€Rule€54.04(2),€Tennessee€RulesÐ ô$D # Ðof€Civil€Procedure.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÔ‡XyVXXXyVÔà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€reversed,€and€this€case€is€dismissed.€€Ô#†XyVXXXyVZ#ÔÔ‡XyVXXXyVÔThe€costs€onÐ )à$( Ðappeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellees,€Mark€Addaman€and€Cathalena€Addaman.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÔ#†XyVXXXyV€[#ÔÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE