ÿWPCa! ³”wHw17ÂP J,¾~x¨©u=òõ¶o„\“³ iäÃP •Y_±‡GªáiýwâðÃ{øõÃôŠ5´-9ýe¢7³sžO%u=UáÝj¦è‡<ØCÙóÏÅQÍ`ʂĸìßîZræd<ò1[ÌrÞÈ3ª`YÀó¶99s½žÜÿãmuM?Qúù«è8!ÐA‘ó}z"#™.1@s øµp³?ý¢¨€ªÙ@Kp|˜~aúH|í#z¾®8p#J4ƒ‘Bx+QÁÄ)–t /ü]q®ž®¡_€º9t±mŸÛ#4õÕ²“¤h¤R¼(_òºÎZ`é½VKèYÊÿ×z™:R˜}Ñ$ª V‚VIØ88;@8Ñåöì^Fï¿Js[£€a𯺙¥—%QáQ•X )‹£_òÑë~굿bZs/µâS³M?×{0a6ÖÖ‚xIƒ‘Ìæ‰ªJƒ!Ö "ˆí¢nÛ{|ˆ<ø"UñKíh³·çåû¸QOÉÉ|Ñæt·°0®}$9"¤Øy‡î}]Â2ŠdWÁg´«‘C¤º‹* ;¸zæ%h…=¦ŽF÷º÷Úî˜ô?i—8«[& |DÏÞƒôwËtžÒј¢åv˜6•1U!>®ªì 0n– 0< 0:@ 0„z D+þ A¡) @ Ê oÔ @ a ok Bø 0C EX ¨UNE 0µ“ÆH 0µ 0µÃ 0(x AQ šñb‹d“:÷²11111 0ã B-å B/ 0š?#ÉÙUN¢ %ð Mö (ú N"!^ $!w0!44!H! mJ!ô\  `‹&Times New Roman'  &Robin McMillan&0Robin McMillan .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ<ÿÿ:Footnote Ref4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6'' ÿÿ4Body TextÑ  Ñò òÓ  ÓÓÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓó ó'dxd›&Draw Object <<=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK  ÿWPC°°º iœ K51ÿÿÿ3%)+-51d ~ -  ÿWPC°°º iœ K51ÿÿÿ3%)+-51d ~ - d(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó ;Ý ƒ%;k!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ ÈÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€¼Dm»XX0²Ôòòò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒ%ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ôÓXò¤¼DmÔóóPlaintiffs€also€sued€Boyd€Williams€d/b/a€Coldwell€Banker€Hamilton€&€Williams€Realty;€Wayne€Thomas€andÐ ° ÐWendy€Thomas,€individually€and€as€employees€of€Charles€M.€Hardy€d/b/a€Ransom€Realty.€€Plaintiff€nonsuited€all€claimsÐ o¿ Ðas€to€these€defendants€prior€to€trial€as€well€as€all€other€claims€against€Defendants.€€ÔÈöF.~ÔÔ€X0²XòôÓXÔ žÝ ƒ!ïÆ$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÓÓÔ€0²XXX0²ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xæ XX0²ÔÔ‡XXæ X XXæÔÔ#†Xæ X XXXæ #ÔÔ‡ô‚¾ò XXæÔð ð[Ô_ÔI]fÔ_Ô€the€Trial€Judge€reached€the€right€result€for€the€wrong€reason,€there€is€no€reversible€error.ðð€€òòShutt€v.€Blountóó,€249Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€904,€907€(Tenn.€1952).€Ð sà ЀÔ#†ôÓXòòô‚¾ê#ÔÔ#†0²XòôÓXK#Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(2W*$©©Ý ƒ%;k!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÝ  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2W*$¢¢Ý ƒ%;k!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÝ  Ý(2W*$££Ý ƒ%;k!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Cþÿ<< cÿÿ Ý ƒ!ïÆ$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÓÓÔ€0²XXX0²ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÓXòX0²ÔWhen€this€Opinion€was€released,€the€time€in€which€to€file€a€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòÔ#†0²XòôÓXê#ÔÔ‡ôÓXòX0²ÔMcRae€v.€Hagamanóó€Ô#†0²XòôÓXÎ#ÔÔ‡ôÓXòX0²Ôhad€not€yet€expired.€Ð o¿ ÐÔ#†0²XòôÓX$#Ô- ù- ZÝ ƒ!ïÆ$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÓÓÔ€0²XXX0²ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÓXòX0²ÔBased€on€the€record€before€us,€it€appears€Defendants€never€raised€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€Plaintiffsðð€reliance€onÐ ° Ðthis€warranty€contained€in€this€affidavit€was€reasonable€given€that€the€warranty€deed€specifically€referencedÐ o¿ Ðeasements€as€shown€on€the€plat.Ô#†0²XòôÓXê#Ô 0Ñ#€'@'Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ RANDELPuckettColdwellnonsuitedSwiney P.J.ShanterrealtorsTrewhittchlorinator t]oe]asementsnonsuitingLoudonMcCallumMcRaeHagamanGurley COAs]uchC.J.S. T]he(Á2ïÆ$¤¤Ý ƒ%;k!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€0²XXX0²ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó)Hairline d  d#|x(r;k$¡¡Ô..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X&ÒXX'XÔÔ€X&ÒXX'X&ÒÔ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular'X…‘s1Þ ÖƒF1ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ%;k!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€'X0²XX'XÔÔ€X0²XX'X0²ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓ   ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ0°ìpÈ xÐ (#°œX0ÓÔ€¼Dm»XX0²ÔÑ€ÿÑàQò ò ìàÔ€îÎ8DmÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐàQRR$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€¼Dm»îîÎ8ÔˆÐ Ï ÐÓ  ÓÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ì…X(#HÓAugust€9,€2004€SessionÐ î> ÐÔ€X0²X»¼DmÔÌÌÔ€¼Dm»XX0²Ôò òRANDEL€P.€CARLTON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€MARK€L.€WILLIAMS,€òòet€alóó.Ô€X0²X»¼DmÔó óÐ Æ  ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bradley€CountyÐ ¸  ÐNo.€V„00„112€€€€€€Lawrence€H.€Puckett,€JudgeÐ ž î ÐÌÌÓÓÔ-  Ôó óߟ€ k[W$â€~œ KpÀ°°@ÿ0 Àdd` œ KEPœ Kœ KÓP2 –ŸßÔ-  Ôò òÌÓÓÌNo.€E2003„02996„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€NOVEMBER€19,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ E•  ÐÌÓÓÔ-  Ôó óߟ€ k[W$â€~œ KpÀ°°@ÿ0 Àdd` œ KEœ Kœ KÓ2 –ŸßÔ-  Ôò òÌÓÓó óÌÑ€ l<` ÑÓ  ÓÌRandel€P.€Carlton,€and€Julie€S.€Carlton€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€purchased€a€house€from€Mark€L.€WilliamsÐ ì< Ðand€Sandra€Kay€Williams€(ð ðDefendantsðð).€€Plaintiffs€later€sued€DefendantsÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝòòÑÈÑ׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿêƒ%ÝÝ  Ýóó€claiming,€amongÐ Ò" Ðother€things,€that€Defendants€knew€and€failed€to€disclose€that€the€swimming€pool€was€not€inÐ ¸ Ðgood€working€order€and€that€the€swimming€pool€encroached€onto€a€sewer€easement€andÐ žî Ðneighboring€property.€€Plaintiffs€also€claimed€that€Defendants€had€warranted€that€all€fixtures,Ð „Ô Ðincluding€the€swimming€pool,€were€free€of€liens€and€encumbrances€and€had€breached€thisÐ jº Ðwarranty.€€The€case€was€tried€on€the€issue€of€whether€Defendants€had€warranted€that€all€fixtures,Ð P  Ðincluding€the€pool,€were€free€of€liens€and€encumbrances.€€The€Trial€Court€found€and€held,€òòinterÐ 6† Ðaliaóó,€that€the€paragraph€of€the€sales€contract€relied€upon€by€Plaintiffs€contained€no€warranty€andÐ l Ðthat€the€ownerððs€affidavit€also€contained€no€warranty€because€it€merged€into€the€deed€at€closing.€Ð R ÐThe€Trial€Court€dismissed€the€case€against€Defendants.€€Plaintiffs€appeal.€€We€affirm,€in€part,Ð è8 Ðreverse,€in€part,€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ð Î ÐÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ šê ÐAffirmed,€in€part,€Reversed,€in€part;€Case€Remandedó óÐ € Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.óóÐ L"œ" Ðand€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð 2#‚# ÐÌWilliam€J.€Brown,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Randel€P.€Carlton€and€Julie€S.Ð þ$N % ÐCarlton.Ð ä%4!& ÐÌBarrett€T.€Painter,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Mark€L.€Williams€and€Sandra€KayÐ °'#( ÐWilliams.Ð –(æ#) ÐÐ |)Ì$* ÐÑÿÑâ âÑ8€'0²'XXdædÈ8ÑÑ€Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òOPINIONó óÐ ° Ðò òòòÌBackgroundó óóóÐ |Ì ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€purchased€a€house€located€at€2455€Tam„O„Shanter€Drive€in€Cleveland,Ð H˜ ÐTennessee€(ð ðthe€Propertyðð)€from€Defendants€in€April€of€1999.€€The€Property€is€encumbered€by€aÐ . ~ Ðsewer€easement€that€is€ten€feet€wide,€five€feet€on€either€side€of€the€lot€lines.Ð  d ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€February€of€2000,€Plaintiffs€sued€Defendants€claiming,€among€other€things,Ð à 0 Ðthat€Defendants€knew€the€in„ground€swimming€pool€located€on€the€Property€was€not€in€goodÐ Æ   Ðworking€order€and€that€Defendants€had€misrepresented€that€it€was.€€Plaintiffs€also€claimed€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€swimming€pool€encroached€on€a€sewer€easement€and€on€neighboring€property€and€thatÐ ’â  ÐDefendants€knew€this€but€did€not€disclose€these€facts.€€Plaintiffs€further€alleged€that€DefendantsÐ xÈ  Ðhad€warranted€that€all€fixtures,€including€the€pool,€were€free€of€all€liens€or€encumbrances€andÐ ^®  Ðthat€this€warranty€was€breached.€€Ð D”  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€Randel€Carlton€testified€that€having€a€house€with€a€swimming€pool€wasÐ ` Ðimportant€to€him€because€his€wife€is€a€stay„at„home€mom€and€the€pool€would€be€at„homeÐ öF Ðentertainment€for€their€two€children.€€He€testified€that€when€they€were€searching€for€a€house€toÐ Ü, Ðpurchase,€he€and€his€wife€looked€at€a€house€across€the€street€listed€for€approximately€the€sameÐ Â Ðprice€as€the€Property,€but€that€house€did€not€have€a€pool.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€were€shown€the€Property€by€realtors,€Wayne€and€Wendy€Thomas.Ð tÄ ÐPlaintiffs€made€an€offer€to€purchase€and€after€some€negotiations,€Plaintiffs€and€DefendantsÐ Zª Ðreached€a€deal€and€entered€into€an€agreement€in€March€of€1999.€€Plaintiffs€rely€on€paragraph€12DÐ @ Ðof€the€Sales€Contract€which€reads€as€follows:€ð ðAll€fixtures€and€equipment€attached€to€orÐ &v Ðappurtenant€to€the€Property,€to€the€extent€included€in€the€sale,€are€represented€to€be€owned€byÐ  \ ÐSellers€free€from€all€liens€and€encumbrances€except€as€stated€herein.ðð€€Plaintiffs€received€aÐ òB Ðdisclosure€statement€from€Defendants€that€stated€Defendants€were€not€aware€of€anyÐ Ø( Ðencroachments€or€easements.€€Plaintiff€Randel€Carlton€testified€that€as€a€result€of€seeing€theÐ ¾ Ðdisclosure€statement,€he€was€not€concerned€about€obtaining€a€survey€of€the€Property.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€did€have€a€home€inspection€done,€but€this€inspection€specificallyÐ p!À  Ðexcluded€the€swimming€pool.€€Mr.€Carlton€testified€that€the€home€inspector€explained€to€him€thatÐ V"¦! Ðthe€pool€was€not€included€in€the€inspection€and€that€an€independent€inspection€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðrecommended.€€€Mr.€Carlton€testified€that€rather€than€obtain€a€separate€inspection€of€the€pool,€heÐ "$r# Ðand€Wayne€Thomas€decided€they€would€inspect€the€pool.€€Mr.€Carlton€stated€he€had€a€pool€at€aÐ %X $ Ðprevious€house€and€was€familiar€with€the€maintenance€and€workings€of€a€pool.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Carlton€testified€that€he€visited€the€Property€with€Wayne€Thomas€on€April€12,Ð º' #' Ð1999,€a€few€days€prior€to€closing,€and€at€that€time€he€pulled€back€the€new€pool€cover€and€noticedÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€the€ð ðcoping€was€pulled€back.ðð€€He€also€stated€he€saw€a€crack€in€the€pool€at€that€time.€€Mr.Ð †)Ö$) ÐCarlton€claims€Wayne€Thomas€told€him€it€was€too€bad,€but€that€Plaintiffs€had€to€close€on€theÐ l*¼%* ÐProperty€despite€these€problems.€€Plaintiffs€signed€the€Purchasers€Property€Inspection€andÐ R+¢&+ ÐAcceptance€knowing€there€was€a€problem€with€the€pool.€€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àà ` àMr.€Carlton€testified€that€shortly€after€closing€on€the€Property,€he€was€notified€byÐ ° Ða€neighbor€of€an€encroachment€problem.€€He€brought€this€problem€to€the€attention€of€his€realtorsÐ –æ Ðand€was€given€surveys€which,€he€testified,€were€his€first€official€notice€of€the€encroachmentÐ |Ì Ðproblem.€€Mr.€Carlton€stated€he€also€then€was€informed€about€the€sewer€easement,€and€so€heÐ b² Ðcontacted€Cleveland€Utilities.€€Mr.€Carlton€testified€that€Cleveland€Utilities€told€him€they€hadÐ H˜ Ðsent€a€letter€about€the€situation€on€the€Property,€but€Mr.€Carlton€testified€he€never€received€anyÐ . ~ Ðsuch€letter.€€He€later€learned€that€the€letter€had€been€sent€to€Mark€Williamsðð€parents,€the€personsÐ  d Ðwho€had€owned€the€Property€before€Mark€and€Sandra€Williams.€€Mr.€Carlton€claims€that€heÐ ú J Ðtalked€to€someone€at€Cleveland€Utilities€regarding€making€repairs€to€the€pool,€but€that€ClevelandÐ à 0 ÐUtilities€would€not€give€him€permission€to€do€what€was€necessary€to€fix€the€problems€with€theÐ Æ   Ðpool€located€partially€on€its€easement.€€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àMadison€S.€Trewhitt,€II,€a€civil€engineer€for€Cleveland€Utilities,€testified€thatÐ xÈ  Ðnormally€if€someone€builds€a€pool€over€one€of€their€easements,€Cleveland€Utilities€does€notÐ ^®  Ðrequire€it€to€be€removed€unless€they€need€to€do€repairs€to€the€sewer.€€However,€Mr.€TrewhittÐ D”  Ðstated€that€Cleveland€Utilities€would€not€give€permission€to€do€the€necessary€repairs€to€this€poolÐ *z  Ðunless€the€repair€included€moving€the€pool€out€of€the€easement.€Ð ` ÐÌà  àà ` àBarry€Savage,€a€licensed€surveyor,€testified€as€one€of€Plaintiffsðð€experts€at€trial.Ð Ü, ÐMr.€Savage€first€saw€the€Property€in€June€of€1999€and€observed€the€pool€in€the€northwest€cornerÐ Â Ðof€the€Property.€€Mr.€Savage€testified€he€noted€that€a€portion€of€the€pool€and€the€pool€house€wereÐ ¨ø Ðbuilt€over€the€sewer€easement.€€Mr.€Savage€testified€that€at€one€point,€the€pool€extendedÐ ŽÞ Ðapproximately€4.4€feet€over€the€easement€and€at€another€point,€3.8€feet€over€the€easement.€€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐSavage€also€noticed€there€was€a€wooden€fence,€which€encroached€on€neighboring€property€byÐ Zª Ðapproximately€1.8€feet.€€This€wooden€fence€since€has€been€removed.€€Mr.€Savage€described€theÐ @ Ðpool€as€being€pushed€all€the€way€up€to€a€chain€link€fence€which€appeared€to€belong€to€a€neighborÐ &v Ðas€it€was€approximately€six€inches€onto€the€neighboring€property.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àEdward€L.€Taylor,€a€structural€engineer,€also€testified€as€an€expert€witness€forÐ Ø( ÐPlaintiffs.€€Mr.€Taylor€viewed€the€Property€in€November€of€2002.€€Mr.€Taylor€observed€that€theÐ ¾ Ðrear€wall€of€the€pool€had€moved€approximately€one€inch€toward€the€fence.€€He€testified€that€theÐ ¤ô Ðsoil€mass€behind€the€pool€shifted€and€this€is€what€caused€the€pool€to€move.€€Mr.€Taylor€stated€heÐ Š Ú Ðalso€saw€cracks€and€noted€that€the€pool€was€not€capable€of€holding€water€or€being€used.€€Ð p!À  ÐHowever,€Mr.€Taylor€testified€he€does€not€know€whether€the€pool€was€sound€structurally€in€AprilÐ V"¦! Ðof€1999,€when€Plaintiffs€purchased€the€Property.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€hired€Doug€Matthews,€owner€of€Matthews€Pool€&€Spa€Company,€whichÐ %X $ Ðinstalls€and€services€swimming€pools,€to€inspect€the€pool€and€give€estimates€either€to€repair€theÐ î%>!% Ðpool€or€to€remove€it€and€install€a€new€pool.€€In€May€of€1999,€Mr.€Matthews€gave€an€estimate€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ð$2,953.06€to€repair€the€pool.€€Mr.€Matthews€also€gave€an€estimate€of€$36,038€to€remove€the€oldÐ º' #' Ðpool,€take€down€the€wooden€fence,€and€install€a€new€pool€and€an€estimate€of€$10,000€just€toÐ  (ð#( Ðremove€the€pool.€€Mr.€Matthews€testified€that€the€old€pool€was€18'€by€36',€but€if€Plaintiffs€wantedÐ †)Ö$) Ða€new€pool,€they€could€put€in€one€only€16'€by€32'€in€order€to€comply€with€setback€distances.€€Mr.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âMatthews€removed€the€pool€and€filled€in€the€area.€€The€evidence€showed€that€Plaintiffs€paid€Mr.Ð R+¢&+ ÐMatthews€$7,500€to€remove€the€pool.€€Mr.€Matthews€testified€that€Plaintiffs€have€not€signed€aÐ ° Ðcontract€with€him€to€put€in€a€new€pool.Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àWhen€questioned€regarding€why€he€had€the€pool€removed,€Mr.€Carlton€testifiedÐ b² Ðthat€he€tried€to€refinance€the€Property,€but€could€not€get€title€insurance€with€the€existing€pool.€Ð H˜ ÐBecause€of€this,€he€had€the€pool€removed.€€He€also€stated€he€had€concerns€about€having€standingÐ . ~ Ðwater€in€an€inoperable€pool€since€he€has€two€small€children.€Ð  d ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€Mark€Williams€testified€he€and€his€wife€moved€into€the€house€on€theÐ à 0 ÐProperty€in€November€or€December€of€1992.€€At€that€time,€they€were€renting€it€from€Mr.Ð Æ   ÐWilliamsðð€parents€who€owned€the€Property.€€Defendants€purchased€the€Property€from€Mr.Ð ¬ ü  ÐWilliamsðð€parents€in€August€of€1995.€€Mr.€Williams€testified€he€knew€nothing€about€any€ð ðsewerÐ ’â  Ðeasement€encroachmentðð€when€he€closed€the€sale€of€the€Property€to€Plaintiffs€in€the€fall€of€1992.Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àà ` àDuring€the€time€they€lived€on€the€Property,€Defendants€had€the€pool€serviced€by€aÐ D”  Ðpool€company.€€They€had€the€pool€liner€replaced€in€approximately€1993€and€added€a€chlorinatorÐ *z  Ðand€later€a€new€cover.€€Mr.€Williams€testified€he€never€noticed€any€cracks€ð ðother€than€perhapsÐ ` Ðwear€and€tear.ðð€€He€stated€that€the€last€time€he€and€his€family€used€the€pool€was€in€August€ofÐ öF Ð1998€and€that€he€did€not€notice€any€problems€with€the€pool€at€that€time.€€Mr.€Williams€had€theÐ Ü, Ðpool€closed€by€the€pool€company€in€November€of€1998.€€Mr.€Williams€testified€he€was€notÐ Â Ðinformed€of€any€problems€with€the€pool€when€it€was€closed€in€November€of€1998.€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Williams€testified€regarding€the€sale€of€the€Property€to€Plaintiffs.€€HeÐ tÄ Ðexplained€that€he€and€his€wife€signed€a€listing€agreement€for€the€Property€with€Boyd€Williams€inÐ Zª ÐFebruary€of€1999.€€Mr.€Williams€filled€out€a€disclosure€form€in€connection€with€listing€theÐ @ ÐProperty€for€sale€and€explained€that€he€checked€ð ðnoðð€on€the€disclosure€form€regarding€easementsÐ &v Ðor€encroachments€because€no€problems€had€ever€arisen€that€affected€his€ownership€and€no€oneÐ  \ Ðhad€talked€to€him€about€any€problems€with€an€easement€or€an€encroachment.€€Mr.€WilliamsÐ òB Ðtestified€that€at€the€time€of€closing,€he€did€not€know€of€any€encroachments€on€the€PropertyÐ Ø( Ðexcept€for€the€fence,€which€he€claims€he€had€forgotten€about.€€He€testified€he€was€aware€thereÐ ¾ Ðwas€a€sewer€easement€on€the€Property,€but€he€did€not€know€its€dimensions€and€he€was€not€awareÐ ¤ô Ðthat€the€pool€encroached€on€the€sewer€easement.€€Mr.€Williams€stated€that€prior€to€the€closing€inÐ Š Ú ÐApril€of€1999,€no€one€informed€him€of€any€problems€with€the€pool.€€€€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€closing,€Defendants€gave€Plaintiffs,€in€addition€to€other€documents,€twoÐ <#Œ" Ðaffidavits€and€a€warranty€deed.€€The€first€affidavit,€titled€Ownersðð€Survey€Affidavit€andÐ "$r# ÐIndemnity€Agreement,€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€ð ð[t]o€the€best€of€our€knowledge€and€belief,Ð %X $ Ðthere€are€no€improvements,€including€but€not€limited€to€buildings,€sheds,€fences,€or€swimmingÐ î%>!% Ðpools,€constructed€on€the€property€at€the€above€address€which€encroach€onto€any€adjoiningÐ Ô&$"& Ðproperty.ðð€€The€second€affidavit,€titled€Owners€Affidavit,€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€ð ðthat€thereÐ º' #' Ðare€no€outstanding€liens€filed€of€record€or€unfiled€claims€or€any€other€liens€or€encumbrances€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðany€kind€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€warranty€deed€states€the€conveyance€is€subject€to,€in€addition€to€other€things,Ð †)Ö$) Ðð ð[e]asements€and€other€matters€as€shown€on€plat€recorded€in€Plat€Book€3,€Page€186,€in€theÐ l*¼%* ÐRegisterððs€Office€of€Bradley€County,€Tennessee.ðð€€The€referenced€plat€discloses€the€sewerÐ R+¢&+ Ðeasement€on€the€Property.€€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àà ` àThe€case€was€tried€in€May€of€2003.€€The€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€on€OctoberÐ ° Ð31,€2003,€finding€and€holding,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Plaintiffs€had€nonsuited€all€claims€against€allÐ –æ Ðparties€except€for€Defendants,€that€Plaintiffs€were€nonsuiting€all€issues€relating€to€DefendantsÐ |Ì Ðwith€the€exception€of€the€claim€that€pursuant€to€paragraph€12D€of€the€sales€contract€DefendantsÐ b² Ðwarranted€the€pool€was€free€of€all€liens€and€encumbrances€and€breached€this€warranty,€that€theÐ H˜ ÐOwnerððs€Affidavit€merged€into€the€deed€at€closing,€and€that€paragraph€12D€of€the€sales€contractÐ . ~ Ðcontained€no€warranty.€€While€the€Trial€Court€stated€that€Plaintiffs€nonsuited€all€claims€exceptÐ  d Ðtheir€claim€pursuant€to€paragraph€12D€of€the€sales€contract,€it€is€clear€from€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ ú J Ðholding€that€issues€concerning€the€claimed€warranties€under€the€two€affidavits€were€tried,Ð à 0 Ðconsidered,€and€decided€by€the€Trial€Court.€€The€Trial€Court€also€stated€in€its€memorandumÐ Æ   Ðopinion€incorporated€into€the€final€judgment:Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà8  àanyone€who€back€on€the€day€the€transaction€took€place,€April€15th€of€1999,Ð xÈ  Ðanyone€who€bought€this€land€was€buying€a€piece€of€property€that,€in€my€opinion,Ð ^®  Ðis€worth,€because€of€this€problem€that€has€developed,€$7,500€less€than€what€theyÐ D”  Ðpaid€for€it€because€partly€and€largely€because€itððs€going€to€take€at€least€that€muchÐ *z  Ðjust€to€come€up€with€a€suitable€home.Ð`Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€noted€no€specific€proof€regarding€diminution€in€value€wasÐ Ü, Ðintroduced€at€trial,€but€held€that€the€proof€of€the€cost€to€remove€the€pool€could€be€considered€asÐ Â Ðrelevant€to€diminution€in€value€if€the€Trial€Court€were€not€dismissing€the€case€as€it€did.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐTrial€Court€stated€that€the€cost€of€reconstructing€the€pool€would€not€constitute€a€special€damageÐ ŽÞ Ðrecoverable€in€a€case€such€as€this€one€even€if€there€was€a€breach€of€a€warranty,€as€PlaintiffsÐ tÄ Ðclaim.€€The€Trial€Court€dismissed€the€case€against€Defendants.€€Plaintiffs€appeal€to€this€Court.Ð Zª ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòDiscussionó óóóÐ &v ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àAlthough€not€stated€exactly€as€such,€Plaintiffs€raise€three€issues€on€appeal:€1)Ð òB Ðwhether€€paragraph€12D€of€the€purchase€agreement€constituted€a€warranty€that€the€swimmingÐ Ø( Ðpool€would€not€encroach€on€the€sewer€easement,€and€if€so,€was€this€warranty€breached;€2)Ð ¾ Ðwhether€the€affidavits€given€by€Defendants€at€closing€constituted€warranties€that€the€swimmingÐ ¤ô Ðpool€did€not€encroach€on€the€sewer€easement,€and€if€so,€were€these€warranties€breached;€and,€3)Ð Š Ú Ðwhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€stated€that€the€cost€for€reconstruction€of€the€pool€would€notÐ p!À  Ðbe€a€special€damage€recoverable€in€this€case€if€warranties€were€breached.€€€€€Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€review€is€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýde€novoÝ‚ÿÿÿdOÐprÝóóÝ  Ý€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÐ "$r# Ðcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ %X $ Ðotherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€A€trialÐ î%>!% Ðcourt's€conclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýde€novoÝ‚ÿÿÿQÐprÝóóÝ  Ý€review€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝS.Ð Ô&$"& ÐConstructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€County€Bd.€of€Educ.Ý‚ÿÿÿ‰QÐprÝóóÝ  Ý,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€consider€whether€paragraph€12D€of€the€purchase€agreement€constituted€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðwarranty€that€the€swimming€pool€did€not€encroach€on€the€sewer€easement,€and€if€so,€was€thisÐ l*¼%* Ðwarranty€breached.€€€€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àà ` àAs€this€Court€discussed€in€òòCity€of€Memphis€v.€Mooreóó:Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà8  àà ` àTennessee€recognizes€the€doctrine€of€merger€whereby€when€ð ðan€executoryÐ |Ì Ðcontract€has€been€entered€into€between€the€parties€for€the€sale€and€purchase€of€realÐ b² Ðestate,€and€subsequently€the€property€is€conveyed€by€a€deed€to€the€purchaserÐ H˜ Ðnamed€in€the€contract,€that€the€contract€of€sale€being€merely€an€executory€contractÐ . ~ Ðmerges€into€the€deed€and€the€deed,€therefore,€becomes€the€final€contract€whichÐ  d Ðgoverns€and€controls.ððÐú JÐ Ð  ÐÌòòCity€of€Memphis€v.€Mooreóó,€818€S.W.2d€13,€15„16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(quoting€òòFuller€v.Ð Æ   ÐMcCallum€&€Robinson,€Inc.óó,€118€S.W.2d€1028,€1037€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1937))€(footnote€omitted);Ð ¬ ü  Ðòòsee€also€e.g.,€McRae€v.€Hagamanóó,€No.€E2004„00852„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€693Ð ’â  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€25,€2004)׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×;€òòGurley€v.€Hickory€Withe€Partners,€L.P.óó,€No.W2002„02050„Ð xÈ  ÐCOA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€674€(Sept.€10,€2003),€òòno€appl.€perm.€appeal€filedóó.€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àà ` àUnder€the€doctrine€of€merger,€paragraph€12D€of€the€purchase€agreement€mergedÐ *z  Ðinto€the€deed€at€closing.€€Therefore,€Plaintiffs€may€not€maintain€an€action€for€breach€of€warrantyÐ ` Ðbased€upon€paragraph€12D€of€the€purchase€agreement.€€We€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€holding€thatÐ öF Ðparagraph€12D€of€the€purchase€agreement€did€not€constitute€a€warranty€breached€by€Defendants.׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€next€consider€whether€the€affidavits€given€by€Defendants€at€closingÐ ¨ø Ðconstituted€warranties€that€the€swimming€pool€did€not€encroach€on€the€sewer€easement,€and€if€so,Ð ŽÞ Ðwhether€these€warranties€were€breached.€We€need€not€discuss€the€first€affidavit,€the€OwnersððÐ tÄ ÐSurvey€Affidavit€and€Indemnity€Agreement,€as€there€were€no€issues€raised€on€appeal€regardingÐ Zª Ðimprovements€that€encroach€onto€any€adjoining€property.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€claim,€however,€that€the€second€affidavit,€or€the€Owners€Affidavit,Ð  \ Ðconstitutes€a€warranty€against€encumbrances€that€was€breached.€€This€affidavit€warrants€ð ðthatÐ òB Ðthere€are€no€outstanding€liens€filed€of€record€or€unfiled€claims€or€any€other€liens€orÐ Ø( Ðencumbrances€of€any€kind€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€Ownerððs€Affidavit€was€not€ð ðan€executory€contract€.€.€.Ð ¾ Ðentered€into€between€the€parties€for€the€sale€and€purchase€of€real€estate.€.€.ðð,€and€therefore€mustÐ ¤ô Ðbe€treated€differently€from€the€purchase€agreement€which€did€merge€into€the€warranty€deed.€Ð Š Ú ÐòòFulleróó,€118€S.W.2d€at€1037.€€As€this€affidavit€was€given€at€closing€in€conjunction€with€theÐ p!À  Ðwarranty€deed€and€was€not€an€executory€contract,€we€hold€that€it€did€not€merge€into€the€warrantyÐ V"¦! Ðâ âdeed.€€We,€therefore,€hold€that€the€Owners€Affidavit€did€constitute€a€warranty€againstÐ <#Œ" Ðencumbrances€and€as€the€sewer€easement€is€an€encumbrance€and€the€pool€sat€partially€on€thisÐ ° Ðeasement,€this€warranty€was€breached€by€Defendants.׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð –æ Ðâ â€Ìà  àà ` àAs€we€have€determined€the€Owners€Affidavit€did€constitute€a€warranty€againstÐ b² Ðencumbrances€that€was€breached€by€Defendants,€we€will€consider€whether€the€Trial€Court€erredÐ H˜ Ðwhen€it€held€that€the€cost€for€reconstruction€of€the€pool€would€not€be€a€special€damageÐ . ~ Ðrecoverable€in€this€case€if€there€was€a€breach€of€warranty.€€We€begin€by€determining€the€properÐ  d Ðmeasure€of€damages.€€Our€Supreme€Court€dealt€with€a€case€involving€an€alleged€breach€of€aÐ ú J Ðcovenant€against€encumbrances€in€òòAmos€v.€Carsonóó,€stating€ð ð[s]uch€a€covenant€ððis€one€which€hasÐ à 0 Ðfor€its€object€security€against€those€rights€to,€or€interests€in,€the€land€granted€which€may€subsistÐ Æ   Ðin€third€persons€to€the€diminution€in€value€of€the€estate€although€consistent€with€the€passing€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€fee.ðððð€€òòAmos€v.€Carsonóó,€210€S.W.2d€677,€679€(Tenn.€1948)€(quoting€21€C.J.S.,€òòCovenantsóó,€ððÐ ’â  Ð42,€page€914).€€Thus,€the€proper€measure€of€damages€here€is€the€diminution€in€value.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€cost€to€cure€a€problem€created€by€a€breach€of€a€covenant€againstÐ D”  Ðencumbrances€is€not€an€element€of€damages,€but€may€be€relevant€to€whether€there€was€anyÐ *z  Ðdiminution€in€value€due€to€the€encumbrance.€€òòEllison€v.€F.€Murray€Parker€Builders,€Inc.óó,€573Ð ` ÐS.W.2d€161,€165€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).€€ð ð[T]he€actual€or€estimated€cost€of€specific€items€ofÐ öF Ðconstruction€or€reconstruction€are€not€recoverable€as€such,€but€may€be€utilized€as€elementsÐ Ü, Ðbearing€upon€the€market€value€of€the€property€in€question.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€Thus,€the€Trial€Court€here€didÐ Â Ðnot€err€when€it€stated€that€the€cost€for€reconstruction€of€the€pool€would€not€be€a€special€damageÐ ¨ø Ðrecoverable€in€this€case.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€note€that€Plaintiffs€put€on€no€specific€proof€regarding€diminution€in€value.€Ð Zª ÐRather,€Plaintiffs€put€on€proof€of€what€it€cost€to€remove€the€pool€and€what€it€would€cost€to€buildÐ @ Ða€new€pool.€€The€cost€of€a€new€pool€is€irrelevant€to€the€measure€of€damages€as€Plaintiffs€may€notÐ &v Ðbe€placed€in€a€better€position€than€what€the€parties€bargained€for,€and€the€parties€bargained€for€aÐ  \ Ðproperty€with€an€existing€pool,€which€Plaintiffs€knew€at€the€time€of€closing€had€certain€problems,Ð òB Ðnot€a€brand€new€pool.€€However,€the€cost€of€removing€the€pool€may€be€utilized€as€an€elementÐ Ø( Ðbearing€upon€diminution€in€value.€€As€the€cost€of€removing€the€pool€was€the€only€evidenceÐ ¾ Ðproperly€presented€to€the€Trial€Court€bearing€on€diminution€in€value,€we€hold€that€Plaintiffs€areÐ ¤ô Ðentitled€to€damages€and€a€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$7,500,€which€represents€the€diminution€inÐ Š Ú Ðvalue€of€the€Property€due€to€the€encumbrance€as€supported€by€the€evidence€in€the€record€beforeÐ p!À  Ðus.€€We€also€hold€that€Plaintiffs€are€entitled€to€prejudgment€interest€on€this€$7,500€starting€fromÐ V"¦! Ðthe€time€they€incurred€this€expense€of€$7,500.€€This€matter€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€forÐ <#Œ" Ðdetermination€and€entry€of€a€judgment€by€the€Trial€Court€based€upon€an€award€of€$7,500€plusÐ "$r# Ðprejudgment€interest€on€that€$7,500.€€Ð %X $ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòÌÌÐ  (ð#( ЇConclusionó óóóÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€in€part,€and€reversed,€in€part,€and€thisÐ |Ì Ðcause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€as€required€by€this€Opinion€and€forÐ b² Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellees,€Mark€L.Ð H˜ ÐWilliams€and€Sandra€Kay€Williams.€€Ð . ~ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ hÓ___________________________________€Ð ^®  ÐD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ D”  Ð