ÿWPCi …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0Jé 0T3 0^‡ 0hå 0rM 0|¿ 0†; 0Á 1uQ 0dÆ UB* %l U6r U>¨ B)æ DC AMR U*Ÿ É v~ã BavÓ~ D3Q 0@„ AOÄÆ 0DÙ D/ BLÚƒç"ÔøÔô3|xm($¡¡ WDXYEZ[D\]D^_Ó€k2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òOctober€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ªXXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ŠÔÙ€€ÙßR€!# A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌÌFAITH€BALLARD,à àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9705„CH„00189Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à)€ANDERSON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌJOHN€WETZEL,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED€AND›Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌCHRISTOPHER€VAN€RIPER,€STUART€&€VAN€RIPER,€Clinton,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌBILL€W.€PETTY,€OððCONNOR€,€PETTY,€CHILD€&€BOSWELL,€Knoxville,€forÏDefendant„Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€action€to€recover€a€Corvette€motor€vehicle,€the€Trial€Judge,€afterÏtrial,€ruled€that€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€possession€of€the€vehicle€and€said:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àThe€Court€finds€.€.€.€the€son€.€.€.€was€the€person€who€was€responsible€forÏthe€disappearance€of€plaintiffððs€Corvette€automobile.ÌÌà0 àà0 àThe€vehicle€was€taken€from€the€garage€of€the€plaintiff,€after€beingÏstored€in€the€garage€because€the€Corvette€had€been€substantiallyÏdamaged€due€to€a€previous€accident.€€After€the€vehicle€had€beenÏremoved€from€the€garage,€restoration€began.ÌÌà0 àà0 àThe€defendant€describes€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€beginningÏrestoration€as€being€a€mere€hull.€€Plaintiff€claimed€the€vehicle€wasÏwrecked,€but€was€whole.€€Plaintiff€claims€that€she€did€not€immediatelyÏreport€the€vehicle€stolen,€because€her€son€assured€her€that€he€wasÏhaving€the€vehicle€restored€for€her.ÌÌà0 àà0 àThis€Court€resolves€all€factual€issues€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€JohnnyÏWetzel.€€In€making€this€ruling,€the€Court€finds€that€the€defendant€was€aÏð ðgood€faith€purchaser€for€valueðð€and€the€auto€hull€once€restoredÏbecame€the€property€of€the€defendant€by€ð ðaccessionðð.€€Any€cause€theÏplaintiff€would€have€should€be€addressed€against€her€son.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€case€was€tried€by€the€Judge€sitting€without€a€jury,€and€his€findingsÏare€reviewed€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record,€accompanied€by€œa€presumption›€ofÏcorrectness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€determinations.Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Judge€correctly€determined€that€defendant€was€a€good€faithÏpurchaser€for€value.€€A€good€faith€purchaser€for€value€is€ð ðone€who€takes€byÏpurchase€getting€sufficient€consideration€to€support€a€simple€contract,€who€is€honestÏin€the€transaction€or€purchaseðð.€€77A€C.J.S.€òòSalesóó€ðð233€(1994).€€T.C.A.€ðð47„1„201(32)€defines€ð ðpurchaseðð€as€ð ðtaking€by€sale,€discount,€negotiation,€mortgage,Ïpledge,€lien,€issue€or€reissue,€gift,€or€any€other€voluntary€transaction€creating€anÏinterest€in€property.ðð€€Defendant€qualifies€as€a€purchaser€because€he€acquired€the€carÏparts€by€sale€and€paid€valuable€consideration.Ìà àà àDefendant€also€acted€in€good€faith.€€T.C.A.€ðð47„1„201(19)€definesÏð ðgood€faithðð€as€ð ðhonesty€in€fact€in€the€conduct€or€transaction€concerned.ðð€ÏTherefore,€a€buyer€is€not€a€good€faith€purchaser€if€he€had€notice€ð ðof€facts€that€wouldÏput€a€reasonably€prudent€person€on€inquiry.ðð€€òòLiles€Bros.€&€Son€v.€Wright,óó€638ÍS.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€1982).€Ìà àà àIn€this€case,€defendant€purchased€the€œð ðhullðð›€from€Lambert€Auto€Parts,Ïwhose€regular€business€is€selling€parts.€€Also,€defendant€received€a€receipt€fromÏLambertððs€documenting€the€purchase€of€the€parts€from€a€George€Martin.€€DefendantÏtook€additional€steps€to€ensure€the€parts€were€not€stolen,€by€checking€the€VINÏnumbers€through€the€County€Clerkððs€Office.Ìà àà àThe€prior€meeting€between€the€parties€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€badÏfaith€on€the€part€of€defendant.€€The€defendant€went€to€plaintiffððs€home€on€oneÏoccasion€to€enquire€about€Corvette€parts€for€sale.€€Both€parties€agreed€that€plaintiffÏtold€him€she€had€no€parts€for€sale.€€The€defendantððs€sales€receipt€from€LambertððsÏAuto€Parts€shows€that€George€Martin€purchased€the€parts€from€Tyrone€Ballard,€theÏplaintiffððs€son,€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€put€defendant€on€notice€thatÏplaintiffððs€son€did€not€have€auto€parts€to€sell.Ìà àà àThe€fact€that€defendant€did€not€obtain€a€certificate€of€title€at€the€time€ofÏpurchasing€the€parts€is€not€dispositive.€€We€have€held€œthe›€fact€that€a€seller€presentsÏno€indicia€of€title€is€not€œalone›€sufficient€to€demonstrate€a€buyerððs€lack€of€good€faith.€ÏòòJernigan€v.€Hamóó,€691€S.W.2d€553€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€In€òòJerniganóó,€the€Court€notedÏthat€it€was€not€customary€to€ask€for€title€to€a€used€piece€of€equipment,€since€it€wasÏusually€unavailable.€€òòId.óó€at€557.€€Similarly,€George€Martin€testified€that€he€usuallyÏreceived€a€title€when€he€bought€ð ðwholeðð€vehicles.€€According€to€his€testimony,ÏMartin€purchased€only€a€ð ðhullðð.€€Moreover,€T.C.A.€œðð55„3„201›€states€that€ð ðanyÏowner€dismantling€.€.€.€any€registered€vehicle€shall€immediately€forward€to€theÍdivision,€the€certificate€of€title.ðð€€Thus,€Martinððs€subsequent€purchasers€had€noÏapparent€reason€to€believe€that€a€certificate€of€title€would€be€available.€€Also,€underÏTennessee€law,€a€certificate€of€title€is€not€required€to€pass€ownership€of€a€motorÏvehicle.€€òòSmith€v.€Smithóó,€650€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.€App.€1983).Ìà àà àPlaintiff€relies€on€three€cases€to€support€her€contention€that€defendantÏwas€not€a€good€faith€purchaser€for€value.€€These€cases,€however,€predate€TennesseeððsÏadoption€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€and€the€cases€cited€deal€with€titles€toÏslaves€or€real€property€and€do€not€apply€in€this€context.Ìà àà àDefendantððs€status€as€a€good€faith€purchaser€for€value,€alone,€does€notÏestablish€good€title€to€the€vehicle.€€T.C.A.€œðð47„2„403›€states€that€ð ða€purchaser€ofÏgoods€acquires€all€title€which€his€transferor€had€or€had€power€to€transfer.€.€.ðð.€€TheÏstatute€also€provides€that€ð ð[a]€person€with€voidable€title€has€power€to€transfer€aÏgood€tile€to€a€good€faith€purchaser€for€value.ðð€€Although€the€Trial€Court€correctlyÏdetermined€that€the€defendant€was€a€good€faith€purchaser€for€value,€the€statuteÏrequires€that€the€transferor€have€at€least€ð ðvoidableðð€title€in€order€to€confer€good€title.Ìà àà àIn€this€case,€the€record€shows€that€Tyrone€Ballard€had€no€authority€toÏsell€plaintiffððs€vehicle.€€We€have€held€that€the€selling€of€a€vehicle€without€authority€toÏdo€so€constitutes€theft.€€òòButler€v.€Buick€Motor€Co.óó,€813€S.W.2d€454€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991),€òòcert€denied,óó€502€U.S.€911€(1991).€€If€ð ðgoods€are€stolen€or€otherwise€obtainedÏagainst€the€will€of€the€owner,€only€void€title€can€result,€and€the€thief€only€has€voidÏtitle€to€the€goods.ðð€€77A€C.J.S.€òòSalesóó€ðð232€(1994).€€Tyrone€Ballard€and€theÏsubsequent€purchasers€had€a€void,€not€voidable,€title.€€Accordingly,€defendantððsÍgood€faith€purchase€status€is€not€itself€sufficient€to€create€good€title€under€T.C.A.Ïðð47„2„403.€€The€defendant,€however,€as€the€Court€held,€acquired€good€title€byÏaccession.Ìà àà àOur€courts€have€held€that€title€may€pass,€however,€to€an€innocentÏpurchaser,€where€there€is€a€great€disparity€in€the€value€between€the€original€articleÏand€the€new€product€resulting€from€the€purchaserððs€labor€and/or€materials.€€òòEusco,ÏInc.€V.€Huddlestonóó,€835€S.W.2d€576€(Tenn.€1992);€òòCapital€Chevrolet€Co.€V.ÏEarheartóó,€627€S.W.2d€369€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€Ìà àà àDefendant€acquired€title€by€accession€because€his€labor€significantlyÏincreased€the€value€of€the€vehicle.€€He€acquired€the€hull€of€a€vehicle€for€$900.00€andÏspent€approximately€$5,000.00€restoring€the€vehicle,€and€invested€approximatelyÏ100€hours€of€restoration€labor.€€There€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€restorationÏhas€a€market€value€of€$7,950.00.€€There€is€ample€evidence€to€support€the€TrialÏCourtððs€finding€that€title€passed€by€accession.Ìà àà àFinally,€plaintiff€argues€that€accession€cannot€apply€because€there€isÏnot€adequate€disparity€between€the€value€of€the€vehicle€when€owned€by€her,€and€theÏvalue€of€defendantððs€restore€vehicle.€€The€only€evidence€of€the€pre„sale€value€of€theÏvehicle€was€plaintiffððs€estimate€of€its€value.€€Assuming€for€purposes€of€argument€thatÏthis€estimate€was€correct,€plaintiffððs€argument€is€founded€upon€an€improperÏcomparison.€€In€òòEarheartóó,€the€Court€did€not€compare€the€value€of€the€originalÏCorvette€to€the€value€of€the€restored€Corvette.€€Rather,€the€Court€compared€theÏvalue€of€the€hull€purchased€by€Sartin€to€the€value€Sartin€created.€€Thus,€the€TrialÍCourt€made€the€proper€comparison€of€value€in€this€case.Ìà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€at€appellantððsÏcost.ÌÓÓÌà àÌÌòòà àÌóóà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌÔ€XÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ô€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌœ›