ÿWPC+ [d¨¤ß§7Q±W6 ?K˜(A$_^œçt“a/ÿÀØË¨#œKéª͆ÑÂ_àòÊ Ç·‹f ¹¶ýBiBhG±½D—@N¼ I”µ èƒF· åU`ŸsÚÁãSÍ\¬ÉÛÕ¤À¬Êæ2%$‘_‹x82¿LõŒý‘ïÆ ‹ä€¤¶Ñ  PÈ¥'ŠâÅÉb?àä4Kô sÁÜ-½5 &â2àR†,å µú]qñƒy ‹ùHò;ún~bÄq|‹‡Òu6*¯Ñ@ÝZcî}P-ÝÓl^è´p-½ñ)HQ`Ä`w¾”$Ròs':kü_‰´<ûú¬ž(SÛs‘ElvC%zú>Þe£yêY°å#æJ £ì‡àG0bn0Mȵ– ̘²>ÓèMž=¿³¿‘½ïäE“YÓx)b$IRDRåfÊ k«z[fDδXCR pVZ¶|Óˆ°Þ<Ϧ¯Vv¾ª*„õ%7£ö°Ü…Qm(=\éWöSµÂ4¾[ÈÞ–]zÏ^ØÆ ÊÀ¨ÂYÚ¾·ž›Ývz(èC+§‡xS ±d"ž¹@êÅpad/™ Ø6× dobYnˆH„,ËûàÈÉœœtiWŸb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U"N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;=EE[ 1‡] 72ä 1u 72‹ 0c½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½b                                     0ë(((( B 0¤0 D3Ô D- 0K44 ASÆÒ 0¤˜ 0D< A«€˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»øy†)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÑuV)ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  Ñ ° Ñ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2ÜQ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X!X»»Ô d(|3Çx$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çx$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼T»»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€OaÑà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@55ìà€€October€2,€2000€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡X!X»¼TÔÌò òÔ#†¼T»XX!´#ÔÓ  ÓHARRY€BARNETT€and€wife,€ELIZABETH€BARNETT,€V.€GARY€L.€LANEÐ Ò" Ðand€wife,€DONNA€L.€LANEòòóóÔ‡X!X»¼TÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÓúÓÌà@M M ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ æ 6 Ðà@ ìàNo.€97„135512„2€€€€€€Hon.€John€F.€Weaver,€ChancellorˆÐ Ò " ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€DECEMBER€6,€2000Ìà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2000„00967„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌPlaintiffs,€purchasers€of€house€from€defendants,€were€awarded€damages€for€defects€in€house€notÐ P  Ðrevealed€by€defendants.€€Plaintiffs€appeal,€asking€punitive€damages€and€an€increase€in€compensatoryÐ <Œ Ðdamages.€We€affirm.Ð (x ÐÌÔ#†¼T»XX!r#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼TÔÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼T»àX! #ÔÔ‡X!X.¼TÔ,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò,Ô#†¼T»àX!Ñ#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼TÔ€Ô‡ X!XàX!ÔÔ#† ¼T»à X!L#ÔÔ‡ X!X. ¼TÔHouston€M.Ð ° ÐGoddardóó,€P.J.,€Ô#†X!XX X!l#ÔÔ#†¼T»XX!®#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼TÔòòóóandòò€€€Ô‡ X!XàX!ÔÔ#† ¼T»à X!D#ÔÔ‡ X!X. ¼TÔD.€Michael€Swineyóó,€J.Ô#†X!XX X!r#ÔÔ#†¼T»XX!´#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼TÔòò,€Ô#†¼T»àX!1 #ÔÔ‡X!X.¼TÔóójoined.Ð œì ÐÌÌJames€M.€Ô_ÔCrainÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Plaintiffs„Appellants,€Harry€Barnett€and€wife,€ElizabethÐ `° ÐBarnett.Ð L œ ÐÌJohn€W.€Ô_ÔRouthÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Defendants„Appellees,€Gary€L.€Lane,€and€wife,€DonnaÐ $"t! ÐL.€Lane.Ð #`" ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼T»XX!x #ÔÔ‡X!X»¼TԈРÀ&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ‡ X!XXX!Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€action€where€plaintiffs€purchased€a€home€from€defendants,€the€Trial€JudgeÐ „)Ô$) Ðsitting€without€a€jury,€found€that€the€defendants€had€concealed€and€failed€to€disclose€the€trueÐ p*À%* Ðcondition€of€the€basement€or€foundation€wall€of€the€house,€and€determined€the€reasonable€cost€ofÐ \+¬&+ Ðrepairs€would€be€$8,468.97,€plus€$1,185.00€incurred€in€finding€alternate€accommodations€while€theÐ H,˜', Ðrepairs€were€made.€€The€Chancellor€denied€punitive€damages,€noting€there€was€no€evidence€as€toÐ 4-„(-ý  Ðdefendantsðð€financial€condition.€€The€Court€further€found€as€to€the€other€claims,€that€the€defendantsÐ ° Ðhad€not€made€any€actual€misrepresentations€concerning€the€basement€room€addition.€€The€CourtÐ œì Ðawarded€$9,653.97€in€compensatory€damages,€and€plaintiffs€have€appealed.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€plaintiffs€raised€the€following€issues:Ð `° ÐÌÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£lÝÔ25hÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€finding€that€the€Defendants€did€not€make€anyÐ 8 ˆ Ðmaterial€misrepresentations€regarding€work€done€in€the€basement?݃3£l¹ÝŒÐ$ t¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àII.€€à0¸ ` (#` (#àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€refusing€to€make€certain€findings€of€fact€requestingÐ ü L  Ðby€the€Plaintiffs€regarding€the€basement€addition?Ðè 8 ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àIII.€€à0¸ ` (#` (#àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€granting€compensatory€damages€in€the€amount€ofÐ À  Ð$9,653.97€when€the€cost€of€total€repairs€were€in€excess€of€$29,700.00?Ьü ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àIV.€€à0¸ ` (#` (#àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€denying€punitive€damages?Ð„Ô ¸ (#¸ (# Ðò òó óà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àOur€review€of€the€case€is€òòde€novoóóupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctnessÐ \¬ Ðas€to€the€Trial€Courtððs€factual€determination,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Ð H˜ ÐTennessee€Rules€Ô#†X!XX X!œ #ÔÔ‡ X!XXX!ÔÔ#† ¼T»X X!` #ÔÔ‡ X!X» ¼TÔof€Appellate€Procedure,€Rule€13(d);€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ôóó,€854Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€Trial€Courtððs€conclusions€of€law,€however,€are€afforded€no€suchÐ  p Ðpresumption.€€òòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corpò ò.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóPlaintiffs€argue€that€defendants€negligently€misrepresented€that€there€were€no€roomÐ ä4 Ðadditions,€structural€modifications€or€other€alterations€or€repairs€made€to€the€home€without€theÐ Ð  Ðnecessary€permits,€or€not€in€compliance€with€the€building€codes.€€The€Chancellor€concluded€thatÐ ¼  Ðbecause€the€statement€in€the€Disclosure€was€made€ð ðto€the€best€of€sellersðð€knowledgeðð€and€related€toÐ ¨ø Ðwhat€the€seller€was€ð ðaware€of,ðð€there€was€no€evidence€of€actual€knowledge€of€the€violations,€and€noÐ ”ä Ðnegligent€or€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àA€claim€for€negligent€misrepresentation€is€actionable€in€Tennessee.€€òòÔ_ÔTarteraÔ_Ô€v.Ð X ¨ ÐÔ_ÔPalumboÔ_Ôóó,€453€S.W.2d€780€(Tenn.€1970).€€òòSee€also€óóRestatement€of€Torts€(Second),€ðð€552.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAbout€four€years€prior€to€the€sale€of€the€house,€defendants€erected€a€wall€in€theÐ #l! Ðbasement€to€close€off€a€room,€running€electrical€wires€to€that€wall.€€No€building€permit€was€obtained,Ð $X" Ðnor€did€defendants€check€for€compliance€with€the€City€building€codes.€Defendants€Disclosure€statedÐ ô$D # Ðthat€to€the€best€of€their€knowledge€they€were€not€aware€of€any€room€addition,€structure€modificationsÐ à%0!$ Ðor€other€alterations€or€repairs€that€were€made€without€the€necessary€permits€or€in€compliance€withÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€building€codes.€€Plaintiffs€insist€that€this€amounted€to€negligent€misrepresentation.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€the€defendants€were€without€knowledge€of€the€applicableÐ )à$( Ðbuilding€codes€or€permit€requirements,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€otherwise.€€PlaintiffsÐ |*Ì%) Ðfailed€to€prove€the€most€basic€requirement€of€a€false€statement.€€The€statement€made€by€theÐ h+¸&* ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñdefendants€was€that€ð ðto€the€best€of€their€knowledgeðð€they€were€not€ð ðawareðð€that€any€work€had€beenÐ ° Ðdone€without€necessary€permits€or€in€violation€of€the€codes.€€Since€the€record€establishes€they€hadÐ œì Ðno€knowledge€of€the€code€and€permit€requirements,€their€statement€is€not€false.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€the€actions,€statements,€rights€and€liabilities€of€the€defendantsÐ `° Ðmust€be€determined€as€if€they€had€actual€knowledge€of€each€and€every€provision€of€public€law.€Ð L œ ÐHowever,€such€a€reading€would€render€meaningless€the€word€ð ðawareðð€and€the€phrase€ð ðto€the€best€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðtheir€knowledgeðð€from€the€statement€signed€by€defendants.€€Ð $ t Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€Chancellor€that€plaintiffs€failed€to€meet€their€burden€of€showingÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€defendants€made€a€false€statement€with€regard€to€the€work€done€in€the€basement.€Ð è 8  Ðò òó óÌà  àà ` àNext€plaintiffs€appeal€the€Courtððs€refusal€to€find€certain€facts€that€were€requested€byÐ À  Ðplaintiffs€in€Plaintiffsðð€post€judgment€motion.€€The€Court€denied€this€motion€holding€that:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€Findings€of€Additional€Facts€requested€by€Plaintiffs€areÐ „Ô  Ðrendered€unnecessary€by€the€Courtððs€finding€that€Defendants€did€notÐ pÀ Ðmisrepresent€that€they€were€not€ð ðawareðð€of€any€room€additions,Ð \¬ Ðstructural€modifications€of€other€alterations€or€repairs€made€withoutÐ H˜ Ðnecessary€permits€or€not€in€compliance€with€building€codes,€and€theÐ 4„ ÐCourt€declines€to€make€such€unnecessary€findings...Ð p` x` x ÐÌThe€requested€findings€that€defendant€did€not€obtain€a€building€permit€and€the€work€did€not€complyÐ øH Ðwith€the€Knoxville€City€building€code€could€be€refused€within€the€Chancellorððs€discretion€where€theÐ ä4 Ðadditional€facts€were€not€relevant€to€his€decision.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àò òó óPlaintiffs€appeal€the€amount€of€compensatory€damages€awarded€as€being€insufficient,Ð ¨ø Ðand€submit€that€the€proper€measure€of€damages€where€a€transaction€is€entered€into€as€a€result€of€fraudÐ ”ä Ðis€the€difference€between€the€agreed€purchase€price€and€the€actual€value€of€the€property€purchased.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€case€of€fraud,€the€measure€of€damages€is€that€the€injured€party€should€beÐ X ¨ Ðcompensated€for€actual€injuries€sustained€by€placing€the€party€in€the€same€position€that€he€or€sheÐ D!” Ðwould€have€been€in€had€the€fraud€not€occurred.€€òòHarrogate€Corp.€v.€Systems€Sales€Corp.óó,€915Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€812,€817€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€òòSee€also€Ô_ÔBolingÔ_Ô€v.€Tennessee€State€Bank,óó€890€S.W.2d€32,Ð #l! Ð35€(Tenn.€1994).Ð $X" Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€as€to€damages€before€the€Court€included€the€testimony€of€plaintiffs€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthey€purchased€the€house€for€$59,000.00,€but€that€its€value€at€that€time€was€$10,000.00€to€$15,000.00Ð Ì&"% Ðdue€to€all€the€problems.€€Plaintiffsðð€contractor€€testified€the€cost€of€the€repairs€was€$29,700.00,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðin€addition,€consequential€damages€in€the€amount€of€$1185.00.€€Defendantsðð€expert€testified€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrepairs€should€have€cost€$8,468.97,€and€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€the€plaintiffs€to€vacate€theÐ )à$( Ðhome.Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àThe€Court€found€that€it€was€necessary€to€vacate€the€residence,€but€that€the€cost€of€theÐ ° Ðrepairs€testified€to€by€defendantsðð€expert€ð ðwas€more€reasonable€and€credible€concerning€these€repairsÐ œì Ðattributable€to€the€bowing€basement€wall€of€this€40€year€old,€$59,000.00€home.ðð€€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffsðð€contractor€testified€extensively€to€the€cost€of€various€repairs,€andÐ `° Ðdefendantsðð€expert€testified€that€he€thought€much€of€the€work€was€unnecessary.€€He€said:€Ð L œ Ð.€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€porch€has€been€enlarged€quite€a€bit,€as€I€said,€two€feet€inÐ $ t Ðthis€direction,€Your€Honor,€and€two€feet€away€from€the€house.€.€.€Ð  ` ÐAnd€they€have€added€just€a€flat€walkway,€like€a€wheelchair€ramp€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€dwelling€itself.€€Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌHe€opined€that€while€it€was€necessary€to€rebuild€the€front€porch€and€to€remove€the€brink€veneer,€itÐ À  Ðwas€not€necessary€to€expand€the€size€of€the€porch.€He€further€outlined€and€identified€what€heÐ ¬ü  Ðconsidered€to€be€excess€unnecessary€work€done€by€the€contractor.€€The€Trial€Court€took€into€accountÐ ˜è  Ðthe€age€of€the€house€and€the€purchase€price€in€arriving€at€the€amount€of€damages€awarded.€€WeÐ „Ô  Ðcannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€his€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€The€Trial€CourtÐ pÀ Ðis€in€the€best€position€to€assess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€and€therefore,€such€determinationsÐ \¬ Ðare€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal.€€òòÔ_ÔMassengaleÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔMassengaleÔ_Ôóó,€915€S.W.2d€818,€819,€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð H˜ ÐApp.€1995);€òòBowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€òòAlso€see€TennesseeÐ 4„ ÐValley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryóó,€526€S.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974).€€The€Trial€Court€clearlyÐ  p Ðfound€defendantsðð€expert€to€be€credible€on€the€issue€of€damages,€and€where€the€reasonable€cost€ofÐ  \ Ðfully€restoring€the€property€is€less€than€the€depreciation€in€value,€the€cost€to€repair€is€the€lawfulÐ øH Ðmeasure€of€damages.€€òòSee€Williams€v.€Southern€Railway€Co.óó,€396€S.W.2d€98€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1965).€Ð ä4 ÐIn€arriving€at€the€difference€in€value€immediately€before€and€after€the€injury€to€the€premises,€the€trierÐ Ð  Ðof€fact€can€take€into€consideration€the€cost€of€restoring€the€property€to€its€former€condition.€Ð ¼  ÐòòMcKinnon€v.€Ô_ÔMichaudÔ_Ôóó,€260€S.W.2d€721€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1953).€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€TrialÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€as€to€the€damages€awarded.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€Court€was€in€error€in€refusing€to€grant€punitiveÐ l¼ Ðdamages€in€light€of€its€findings€that€the€defendants€had€misrepresented€the€condition€of€the€house.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€jurisdiction€it€is€clear€that€punitive€damages€are€ð ðÔ_Ôrestrict[edÔ_Ô]€.€.€.€to€casesÐ 0"€  Ðinvolving€only€the€most€egregious€of€wrongs.ðð€€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Ô_ÔToofÔ_Ô€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€A€court€may€ð ðaward€punitive€damages€only€if€it€finds€a€defendant€has€acted€either€(1)Ð $X" Ðintentionally,€(2)€fraudulently,€(3)€maliciously,€or€(4)€recklessly.ðð€òòò ò€ó óIdóó.€€Such€an€award€is€onlyÐ ô$D # Ðappropriate€when€the€necessary€conduct€has€been€shown€ð ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€defendantsðð€financial€condition€is€not€required€as€it€is€only€oneÐ ¸'#& Ðfactor€to€be€considered.€€Citing€òòAnderson€v.€Ô_ÔLathamÔ_Ô€Trucking€Co.óó,€728€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn.€1987).òòò òó óóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐHowever,€even€if€defendantsðð€financial€condition€is€required,€under€òòHodgesóó,€it€is€to€be€consideredÐ )à$( Ðin€determining€the€amount€of€punitive€damages€once€the€fact€finder€has€determined€that€punitiveÐ |*Ì%) Ðdamages€are€appropriate.€€Therefore,€plaintiffs€argue€that€they€are€entitled€to€at€least€nominal€punitiveÐ h+¸&* Ðdamages€because€the€Trial€Court€found€that€the€defendants€had€intentionally€and€knowinglyÐ ° Ðconcealed€the€defects€in€the€home.€€We€do€not€agree.Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIt€is€not€enough€that€the€Court€finds€the€Defendant€acts€fraudulently€or€intentionally.€Ð tÄ ÐSuch€determinations€must€be€supported€by€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€In€a€case€similar€to€this,Ð `° Ðthe€Court€found€the€Defendants€guilty€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation€for€knowingly€and€willfullyÐ L œ Ðfailing€to€disclose€information€to€the€Plaintiffs.€€òòÔ_ÔMurvinÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCoferÔ_Ôóó,€968€S.W.2d€304€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1997).€€Nevertheless,€this€Court€found€an€award€of€punitive€damages€to€be€inappropriate:€€Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€cannot€say€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€under€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„Ð ü L  Ð109(a)(3)€satisfy€the€quality€or€quantity€of€proof€required€underÐ è 8  ÐòòHodgesóó€to€sustain€an€award€of€punitive€damages.€.€.€€Furthermore,€the€Ð Ô$  Ðtrial€court€did€not€indicate€whether€it€found,€by€ð ðclear€and€convincingÐ À  Ðevidence,ðð€the€egregious€conduct€required€by€òòHodgesóó.òòò ò€€ó óóóWe€cannotÐ ¬ü  Ðextrapolate€the€trial€courtððs€findings€regarding€the€defendantsððÐ ˜è  Ðintentional€misrepresentations€into€the€requisite€findings€of€egregiousÐ „Ô  Ðconduct€contemplated€by€òòHodgesóó.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌòòÔ_ÔMurvinÔ_Ôóó,€968€at€311„312.òòò òÐ H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àóóó óIn€this€case,€the€Trial€Court€did€not€find€the€actions€of€the€Defendants€to€beÐ l Ðð ðegregiousðð€nor€were€any€of€the€findings€made€by€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€In€fact,€the€TrialÐ X ÐCourt€relied€heavily€on€the€inference€drawn€from€the€fact€that€the€Defendant,€Mr.€Lane,€did€notÐ ôD Ðtestify.€€While€a€Ô#†X!XX X! #ÔÔ#†¼T»XX!M#ÔÔ‡ ¼T»»¼TÔÔ‡ X!X» ¼TÔpreponderance€of€the€evidence€supported€the€Courtððs€decision,€we€cannot€say€thatÐ à0 Ðit€found,€ð ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidenceðð€that€the€Lanes€acted€intentionally€or€knowingly.€€NorÐ Ì Ðcan€we€extrapolate€from€the€Courtððs€findings€the€level€of€egregious€conduct€contemplated€byÐ ¸ ÐòòHodgesóó.Ð ¤ô ÐÔ#†X!XX X!ýI#ÔÔ#†¼T»XX!J#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼TÔà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€and€remand€with€the€cost€of€theÐ |Ì Ðappeal€assessed€to€plaintiffs€Harry€and€Elizabeth€Barnett.Ð h¸ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð #h! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð $T" Ðóó