ÿWPC. åøõº¤J³X1¬·³Cç©xNzÞWewÊ"Ü`¦%¿Ä'M\n,P÷ .ÕóYO[gø:OWýà·,šÈã#¦»f•Lì‡6L}©S @@[xZËó\²H¹Ä¸RãÇÐòŒÉð ƒÊ 5­öNÓŽÓ­¤fP¢Š/!ö1rt÷säÉácð C±¬,[ÉSe@0Ív{ù uÑö©ŒfªPòcýyØBî?˜›ÙQwOeHÆ™B\ó­ švbŠ›Dtî#ôcA_ѵ:z ã0=ºîP¦Ü–ùßo ‡!ìû” £L¢³¬·#g°éfë[RbÙ"R»öSpîN4¿ö,V|ô£ªõ‘#4úû3]¡Öa”R%æ%ðüää5 ¾*G£5¨ÈaªYW”[â®ê8‰ðõ Ýóñêît†õTÖÒ…Üã§eœ¶`b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë 0U±N 0ã 0àëEË 0ÝÍ 0Úª 0ׄ 0Ô[ 0Ñ/ 0Î 0CÎ 0Ñ 0Îâ 0˰ 0È{ 0ÅC 0 0¿Ê 0º‰ 0@C 0΃ 0ËQ 0È 0Åä 0© 0¿k 0¼*!bæ! 0·î!_¥" 0D$#H$”k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k%k% 0ëÿ(ÿ(ÿ(ÿ( Bê)ê) 0¤* D3«* D-Þ* 0K + + ASV+Æ©+ 0¤o, 0D- A«W-»‰;-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-C17W¦3|x ˜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‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*D+J ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+J ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+J ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+J ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+J ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+J ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+J ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*/+J ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*DJ ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AJ ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>J ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;J ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8J ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5J ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2J ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(/J ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(DJ ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AJ ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>J ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;J ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8J ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5J ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2J ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-&/J ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó UÝ ƒR>®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€claim€against€Jack€Newman€was€nonsuited€on€the€day€of€trial.€€Valigaððs€claim€against€Masters€Truss€wasÐ ° Ðnot€pursued€at€trial€because€Masters€Truss,€apparently,€was€no€longer€in€existence.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR>®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Valiga€also€called€Gordon€Thompson€as€an€expert€witness.€€Gordon€Thompsonððs€testimony€was€in€accordÐ ° Ðwith€the€testimony€of€Johnson. ŠÝ ƒR>®$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€It€took€approximately€10€years€for€Valiga€to€finish€the€repairs€and€re„construct€the€home€to€the€point€whereÐ ° Ðhe€could€occupy€it.€€There€was€concern€expressed€by€the€Trial€Court€as€to€the€reasonableness€of€this€length€of€time€andÐ tÄ Ðattendant€damages.€€Valiga€was,€however,€awarded€substantially€less€by€the€Trial€Court€than€he€claimed€in€damages€andÐ 8ˆ ÐValiga€does€not€challenge€the€amount€of€the€award€on€appeal.€€Defendantsðð€attack€the€amount€of€the€award€only€by€wayÐ üL Ðof€claiming€an€offset€to€the€amount€awarded€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Therefore,€we€will€not€list€each€claimed€item€of€damageÐ À Ðnor€discuss€whether€they€were€properly€attributable€to€the€alleged€conduct€of€Defendants.€€(|G2>®$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµò»»Ô d(|3¿p$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿p$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€IáXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î\ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ »îî\ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€23,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XIáX»¼ ÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼ »XXIáô#ÔCHRISTMAS€LUMBER€COMPANY,€INC.€v.Ð Ò " ÐROBERT€E.€VALIGA,€òòet€alóó.ó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ€XIáX»¼ ÔAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  \  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€103270„2€€€€€€John€F.€Weaver,€ChancellorÐ øH  ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€27,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ Ð  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02444„COA„R3„CVÐ · ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌAfter€experiencing€significant€problems€with€the€construction€of€a€house€he€was€having€built,€RobertÐ vÆ ÐE.€Valiga€(ð ðValigaðð)€sued€Robert€H.€Waddell€(ð ðWaddellðð)€and€John€Graves€(ð ðGravesðð)€(collectivelyÐ b² Ðreferred€to€as€ð ðDefendantsðð)€seeking€damages€for€the€poor€construction.€€Although€the€constructionÐ Nž Ðcontract€was€between€Valiga€and€R.H.€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.,€no€corporate€charter€had€beenÐ :Š Ðfiled€when€the€contract€was€signed.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€Waddell€and€Graves€were€partnersÐ &v Ðand€entered€judgment€against€them€individually€for€$80,045.79.€€After€judgment€was€entered,Ð b ÐDefendants€filed€motions€seeking€to€amend€their€answers€to€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€Ð þN ÐThese€motions€were€denied€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Graves€and€Waddell€appeal,€challenging€the€TrialÐ ê: ÐCourtððs€conclusion€that€they€were€partners€and€subject€to€individual€liability,€the€denial€of€theirÐ Ö& Ðmotions€seeking€to€amend€their€answers€to€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense,€and€the€TrialÐ Â ÐCourtððs€award€of€prejudgment€interest€to€Valiga.€€We€affirm.Ð ®þ ÐÌÌò òà@µ µ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ r"Â! Ðà@s s ìàChancery€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.€ˆÐ ^#®" ÐÌó óòòÌD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ "&r!% ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð '^"& ÐÌRobert€S.€Holland,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€John€Graves.Ð æ(6$( ÐÌRichard€L.€Burnette,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Robert€H.€Waddell.Ð ¾*&* ÐÌJohn€M.€Neal,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Robert€E.€Valiga.Ð –,æ', ÐÓÓÐ ‚-Ò(-ýà ÐÓÓà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€January€10,€1990,€Christmas€Lumber€Company,€Inc.,€(ð ðChristmas€Lumberðð)€filedÐ `° Ða€complaint€against€Valiga,€Waddell,€and€others€seeking€to€enforce€a€materialmenððs€lien€for€buildingÐ L œ Ðmaterials€purchased€by€Waddell€to€be€used€on€the€house€being€built€for€Valiga.€€The€amount€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðlien€was€approximately€$7,209.45.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€December€2,€1992,€Valiga€filed€a€separate€lawsuit€against€Waddell€and€Graves.€Ð ü L  ÐValiga€claimed€he€entered€into€a€contract€on€September€12,€1988,€with€ð ðwhat€was€known€asðð€R.H.Ð è 8  ÐWaddell€Construction,€Inc.,€for€the€construction€of€a€house.€€Valiga€claimed€he€started€experiencingÐ Ô$  Ðproblems€with€the€quality€of€the€construction€almost€immediately€after€construction€began.€€ValigaÐ À  Ðcomplained€about€the€problems,€and€was€assured€the€house€would€be€constructed€according€toÐ ¬ü  Ðapplicable€laws€and€building€codes,€etc.€€Valiga,€therefore,€allowed€construction€to€continue.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðquality€of€construction€did€not€improve,€and€Waddell€terminated€the€contract€on€February€14,€1989,Ð „Ô  Ðwell€before€construction€was€completed.€€Valiga€then€had€the€construction€work€inspected€and€claimsÐ pÀ Ðnumerous€structural€defects€were€found.€€Valiga€attached€to€his€complaint€a€letter€dated€March€9,Ð \¬ Ð1989,€from€the€Knox€County€Department€of€Code€and€Administration.€€This€letter€lists€22Ð H˜ Ðdeficiencies€found€during€the€inspection€of€the€unfinished€house,€many€of€which€were€seriousÐ 4„ Ðstructural€defects.€€Because€of€these€defects,€Valiga€was€ð ðorderedðð€to€stop€construction€on€the€houseÐ  p Ðð ðuntil€a€professional€evaluation€has€been€made,€submitted€to€this€office€for€review,€and€aÐ  \ Ðdetermination€made€regarding€remedial€action€to€be€taken€to€correct€the€conditions€noted.ðð€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àValiga€sued€Waddell€and€Graves€personally€because,€according€to€the€complaint,Ð Ð  Ðthere€was€no€corporation€chartered€by€the€State€named€R.H.€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.€when€theÐ ¼  Ðcontract€was€entered€into€on€September€12,€1988.€€The€corporate€charter€was€issued€after€Valiga€hadÐ ¨ø Ðentered€into€the€construction€contract€and€the€charter€apparently€was€revoked€on€July€20,€1991.Ð ”ä ÐValiga€claimed€R.H.€Waddell€Corporation€was€a€ð ðshamðð€corporation,€an€alter€ego€of€Defendants,Ð €Ð Ðhad€no€assets,€and€simply€served€to€receive€and€disburse€funds€from€Valiga.€€Valiga€soughtÐ l¼ Ðcompensatory€and€punitive€damages€from€Defendants.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€two€lawsuits€were€consolidated.€€Christmas€Lumber€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ 0"€  Ðjudgment€against€Waddell.€€Christmas€Lumber€was€granted€summary€judgment€against€WaddellÐ #l! Ðpersonally€for€$17,083,€which€included€the€amount€of€Christmas€Lumberððs€lien,€interest,€and€attorneyÐ $X" Ðfees€pursuant€to€the€contractually€agreed€upon€rate.€€This€judgment€was€entered€as€a€final€andÐ ô$D # Ðappealable€judgment,€but€no€appeal€was€taken€by€Waddell.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àGraves€obtained€an€order€from€the€Trial€Court€directing€Valiga€to€make€a€moreÐ ¸'#& Ðdefinite€statement€as€to€the€cause€of€action€asserted€against€him.€€In€response,€on€February€2,€1995,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐValiga€filed€a€motion€to€amend€the€complaint€to€state€with€more€specificity€his€cause€of€actionÐ )à$( Ðagainst€Graves.€€Valiga€also€sought€to€add€Masters€Truss€Systems,€Inc.€€(ð ðMasters€Trussðð)€as€a€newÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendant.€€Valiga€claimed€Masters€Truss€supplied€defectively€designed€and€defectively€constructedÐ h+¸&* Ðtrusses€on€the€project.€€The€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€on€June€26,€1995,€permitting€Valiga€to€fileÐ ° Ðthe€amended€complaint.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€July€22,€1996,€Valiga€filed€a€motion€for€sanctions€against€Masters€Truss,€pointingÐ tÄ Ðout€to€the€Trial€Court€that€an€order€had€been€entered€directing€Masters€Truss€to€respond€to€discovery,Ð `° Ðand€no€response€had€been€forthcoming€by€the€deadline€set€forth€by€the€Trial€Court.€€The€nextÐ L œ Ðdocument€in€the€record€is€a€response€by€Christmas€Lumber€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€filedÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€Valiga.€€The€motion€for€summary€judgment€pertained€only€to€the€claim€by€Christmas€LumberÐ $ t Ðagainst€Valiga.€€Christmas€Lumber€notified€the€Trial€Court€that€Waddell€had€satisfied€the€judgmentÐ  ` Ðrendered€against€him€and€attached€a€copy€of€a€Release€filed€with€the€Register€of€Deeds€Office.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðclaim€by€Christmas€Lumber€apparently€was€resolved€at€this€point.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€April€of€1998,€Valiga€against€sought€to€amend€his€complaint,€this€time€seeking€toÐ À  Ðadd€as€a€defendant€Jack€Newman,€the€previous€owner€of€Masters€Truss.€€This€motion€was€grantedÐ ¬ü  Ðon€December€3,€1999.׃0×Ý ƒ1#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€May€8,€2000,€Graves€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€claiming€that€neither€wasÐ ˜è  Ðhe€a€party€to€the€contract€between€Valiga€and€R.H.€Waddell€Construction€Company,€Inc.,€nor€wasÐ „Ô  ÐValiga€a€third€party€beneficiary€of€any€agreement€between€Graves€and€Waddell.€€Valiga€responded,Ð pÀ Ðclaiming€Waddell€and€Graves€were€joint€venturers€and€Graves€could€be€held€vicariously€liable€onÐ \¬ Ðthat€basis.€€Valiga€attached€a€Joint€Venture€Agreement€entered€into€between€Graves€and€WaddellÐ H˜ Ðdated€November€11,€1988.€€The€stated€intent€of€the€Joint€Venture€Agreement€was€ð ðto€enter€into€anÐ 4„ Ðagreement€for€the€purpose€of€the€construction€of€a€residence€located€on€a€lot€owned€by€Robert€E.Ð  p ÐValiga€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€Joint€Venture€Agreement€went€on€to€provide:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à1.à0` x` xàòòPURPOSEóóÐä4xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThat€this€Agreement€is€entered€into€in€order€to€assureÐ ¼  Ðcontinuity€regarding€this€particular€project€in€the€event€of€the€death€orÐ ¨ø Ðdisability€of€Robert€Waddell€and/or€John€Graves.€€Further,€that€aÐ ”ä Ðsignificant€purpose€is€to€assure€shared€liability€in€the€event€of€aÐ €Ð Ðlawsuit€or€other€legal€action€against€either€Robert€H.€Waddell€or€JohnÐ l¼ ÐGraves.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à2.à0` x` xàòòDURATIONóóÐ0"€ xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThis€agreement€is€effective€as€of€the€date€of€execution€andÐ $X" Ðshall€remain€effective€unless€cancelled€in€writing€by€one€or€more€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€parties€or€otherwise€terminated€as€provided€herein€during€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcourse€of€construction€of€the€above€captioned€property.€€Once€theÐ Ì&"% Ðconstruction€of€the€above€captioned€property€is€completed€accordingÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€plans€and€specifications€and€a€closing€is€held€and€the€funds€areÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpaid€to€each€party€hereto€as€provided€herein€then€this€agreement€shallÐ ° Ðbe€null€and€void.Мì` x` x ÐÌà@ÙÙ'ìà*€*€*€*ˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à15.à0` x` xàòòPROFITS€AND€LOSSESÐL œxx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àóóThe€profits€and/or€losses€as€well€as€expenses€are€to€be€dividedÐ $ t Ðequally€between€the€parties.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àGraves€filed€his€answer€to€the€complaint€on€September€18,€2000.€€The€trial€in€thisÐ è 8  Ðmatter€began€that€same€day.€€At€trial,€Waddell€testified€he€is€a€land€surveyor€and€has€a€degree€inÐ Ô$  Ðarchitecture€from€the€University€of€Tennessee.€€In€1988,€he€decided€to€ð ðgo€into€the€contractingÐ À  Ðbusinessðð€and€entered€into€a€contract€with€Valiga.€€Valigaððs€house€was€the€first€and€only€houseÐ ¬ü  ÐWaddellððs€construction€company€ever€built.€€When€he€entered€into€the€contract€with€Valiga,€WaddellÐ ˜è  Ðsigned€the€contract€on€behalf€of€R.H.€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.€€When€asked€if€the€corporateÐ „Ô  Ðcharter€had€been€recorded€at€the€time€the€contract€was€entered€into€with€Valiga,€Waddell€stated€heÐ pÀ Ðhad€ð ðno€knowledge€of€that.ðð€€Waddell€was€unsure€who€prepared€the€charter,€although€he€did€not€doÐ \¬ Ðit€himself.€€Waddell€signed€this€document€as€the€ð ðincorporatorðð€on€the€stated€date€of€August€19,Ð H˜ Ð1988,€although€it€was€not€filed€with€the€Secretary€of€Stateððs€office€until€December€9,€1988,€and€withÐ 4„ Ðthe€Registrarððs€Office€in€Knox€County€until€January€12,€1989.€€On€September€12,€1988,€the€same€dayÐ  p ÐWaddell€entered€into€the€contract€with€Valiga,€Graves€opened€an€account€at€Christmas€Lumber€inÐ  \ Ðorder€to€obtain€building€materials.€€Graves€opened€the€account€in€Waddellððs€name€and€where€theÐ øH Ðaccount€information€stated€ð ðtype€of€customer,ðð€Graves€marked€ð ðindividual.ðð€€Graves€signed€theÐ ä4 Ðdocument€on€behalf€of€Waddell.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€Waddell€identified€a€letter€he€received€from€Valiga€dated€November€9,€1988,Ð ¨ø Ðdiscussing€ð ðrequestsðð€being€made€by€Valiga€addressing€the€construction€of€the€house.€€ValigaÐ ”ä Ðterminated€Waddellððs€services€the€next€day€by€letter€dated€November€10,€1988.€€Apparently€sensingÐ €Ð Ðpotential€litigation,€Waddell€and€Graves€on€November€11,€1988,€entered€into€the€Joint€VentureÐ l¼ ÐAgreement€(Agreementðð).€€The€only€parties€to€the€Agreement€were€Waddell€and€Graves.€€R.H.Ð X ¨ ÐWaddell€Construction,€Inc.,€was€not€a€party€to€the€Agreement.€€Pursuant€to€the€terms€of€theÐ D!” ÐAgreement,€Waddell€and€Graves€divided€funds€received€from€Heritage€Federal€for€construction€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Valiga€home.€€After€Waddell€ð ðpatched€things€back€upðð€with€Valiga,€he€returned€to€work€on€theÐ #l! Ðproject€from€November€until€February€of€the€next€year.€€On€February€11,€1989,€Waddell€receivedÐ $X" Ða€letter€from€Valiga€wherein€Valiga€expressed€his€shock€regarding€the€cost€of€the€construction€job.€Ð ô$D # ÐThree€days€later,€Waddell€quit€as€Valigaððs€contractor.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àWaddell€testified€to€interrogatory€responses€signed€by€him€under€oath€wherein€heÐ ¸'#& Ðstated€Graves€was€a€co„partner€in€a€joint€venture€agreement€for€the€purpose€of€constructing€the€houseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€Valiga.€€He€also€indicated€Graves€had€ð ðarranged€the€contract€with€Valiga.ðð€€During€a€pretrialÐ )à$( Ðdeposition,€when€asked€why€he€and€Graves€had€entered€into€the€Agreement,€Waddell€stated€ð ðsinceÐ |*Ì%) ÐJohn€and€I€were€Ô_ÔinÔ_Ô€partnership€ð!ð€were€in€a€partnership€for€this€project,€you€know,€we€both€kind€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðfelt€that€we€needed€some€type€of€an€agreement€about€our€status€on€the€job.ðð€€Waddell€later€testifiedÐ ° Ðit€was€his€intent€to€operate€as€a€corporation€and€not€as€a€partnership€or€an€individual.€€WaddellÐ œì Ðadmitted€he€and€Graves€split€the€$11,500€contractorððs€fee€received€from€the€Valiga€project.€€He€andÐ ˆØ ÐGraves€also€equally€paid€Christmas€Lumberððs€judgment€against€Waddell.€€Waddell€stated€that€afterÐ tÄ Ðthe€corporation€was€established,€no€one€paid€anything€to€the€corporation€for€stock€and€no€oneÐ `° Ðcontributed€any€capital.€€He€is€unaware€of€any€corporate€officers€or€directors€being€elected.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àRonald€Newman€was€the€owner€of€Master€Truss€Systems,€Inc.,€which€manufacturedÐ $ t Ðthe€trusses€used€in€the€Valiga€home.€€At€trial,€Newman€explained€how€trusses€are€built€and€theirÐ  ` Ðfunction.€€According€to€Newman,€he€went€to€the€home€to€inspect€it€after€he€received€a€telephone€callÐ ü L  Ðfrom€Valiga.€€He€saw€the€floor€trusses€in€the€great€room€had€been€placed€upside€down.€€In€addition,Ð è 8  Ðð ðthere€were€some€hangers€that€needed€to€be€straightened€up,€and€also€some€bearings€for€the€girderÐ Ô$  Ðtrusses,€which€is€a€truss€that€carries€several€other€trusses,€and€concentrated€loads€on€the€wall,€and€itÐ À  Ðneeded€bearings€from€the€top€plate€all€the€way€to€the€basement,€which€they€didnððt€have.ðð€€NewmanÐ ¬ü  Ðalso€stated€a€truss€installed€upside€down€will€create€a€sag€in€the€floor€up€to€a€half€inch.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àGraves€testified€he€does€ð ðtax€preparationðð€for€a€living.€€Graves€acknowledged€signingÐ pÀ Ðthe€Joint€Venture€Agreement€which€provided€he€was€to€receive€50%€of€the€contractorððs€fee.€Ð \¬ ÐHowever,€Graves€received€only€$5,570€of€the€$16,000€contractors€fee.€€Graves€testified€his€company,Ð H˜ Ðð ðTax€Managementðð,€actually€received€these€payments.€€Graves€claimed€he€made€no€decisionsÐ 4„ Ðconcerning€the€construction€of€the€Valiga€house.€€Graves€stated€he€was€on€the€job€six€to€eight€hoursÐ  p Ða€day€for€a€majority€of€the€time€the€house€was€being€constructed.€€Graves€never€was€a€shareholderÐ  \ Ðin€R.€H.€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.€€Graves€agreed€to€work€on€the€project€because€it€was€not€a€busyÐ øH Ðtime€for€his€tax€preparation€business.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àLynn€Johnson€(ð ðJohnsonðð),€an€architect€with€a€bachelor€of€architecture€degree€fromÐ ¼  Ðthe€University€of€Tennessee,€was€called€as€a€witness€at€trial.€€Johnson€testified€he€performed€aÐ ¨ø Ðð ðconstruction€analysisðð€on€the€house.€€The€ð ðmajor€conclusionðð€reached€by€Johnson€ð ðwas€that€theÐ ”ä Ðcenter€of€the€residence€was€not€built€structurally€sound€according€to€what€we€saw.ðð€€Johnson€testifiedÐ €Ð Ðthere€were€ð ðtremendous€structural€flaws.ðð€€Johnson€went€on€the€explain€in€detail€the€defects€that€wereÐ l¼ Ðfound€and€upon€what€he€based€his€conclusion.€€Johnson€opined€there€was€a€ð ð[g]ood€possibility€ofÐ X ¨ Ðfailureðð€in€the€structure€resulting€from€the€trusses€being€installed€upside€down.€€There€were€25€to€30Ð D!” Ðtrusses€improperly€installed€in€just€one€room.€€In€addition€to€the€trusses€being€installed€improperly,Ð 0"€  ÐJohnson€also€observed€ð ðpoor€craftsmanshipðð€throughout€the€house.€€After€analyzing€the€conditionÐ #l! Ðof€the€house,€Johnson€told€Valiga€he€had€three€options:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst€choice€was€to€take€a€D„9€bulldozer€out€there€and€take€the€wholeÐ à%0!$ Ðthing€out€and€start€from€the€foundation€and€come€back€up,€worse€caseÐ Ì&"% Ðscenario.€€The€next€case€scenario€was€to€take€all€of€the€wood€off,€inÐ ¸'#& Ðother€words,€take€it€all€the€way€back€to€the€foundation;€leave€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconcrete€blocks€in€place.€€There€were€some€problems€with€doing€that.€Ð )à$( ÐThere€was€a€ð!ð€where€the€load€point€comes€down€at€the€great€room,Ð |*Ì%) Ðthere€was€some€block€work€that€really€wasnððt€done€to€carry€a€loadingÐ h+¸&* Ðcondition.€€So€we€talked€about€that€a€bunch,€and€then€we€decided€that,Ð ° Ðno,€we€wonððt€do€that.€€The€third€and€least€expensive€solution€was€toÐ œì Ðtake€the€middle€of€the€building€down,€because€at€that€time€weÐ ˆØ Ðestablished,€between€the€three€of€us,€that€that€was€the€mostÐ tÄ Ðstructurally€weak€part€of€the€building.€€So€that€was€the€decision€thatÐ `° Ðwas€made€to€take€the€center€part€of€the€house,€the€roof,€the€secondÐ L œ Ðfloor,€the€first€floor,€take€all€that€wood€out€and€come€back€in€and€re„Ð 8 ˆ Ðinstall€new€trusses.׃2×Ý ƒ1#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àValiga€testified€he€works€at€Oak€Ridge€National€Laboratory€and€has€a€masters€degreeÐ ü L  Ðin€nuclear€engineering.€€Valiga€stated€he€ð ðdemolishedðð€the€center€section€of€the€house€in€accordanceÐ è 8  Ðwith€Johnsonððs€suggestion.€€A€significant€amount€of€time€was€spent€replacing€and€rebuilding€theÐ Ô$  Ðfloor€trusses.€€The€house€was€not€completed€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Ô_ÔValigaÔ_Ô€and€his€wife€rented€anÐ À  Ðapartment€or€house€while€work€continued€on€the€house.€€Valiga€entered€into€evidence€an€exhibitÐ ¬ü  Ðwhich€outlined€the€expenses€he€claimed€to€have€incurred€as€a€result€of€having€to€demolish€andÐ ˜è  Ðrebuild€much€of€the€house.€€The€total€of€Valigaððs€claimed€expenses€was€$324,361.41.׃3×Ý ƒ1#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Valiga€wasÐ „Ô  Ðquestioned€at€length€regarding€the€various€expenses€and€damages€as€well€as€the€defects€in€the€house.€Ð pÀ ÐValigaððs€testimony€was€in€accord€with€the€testimony€of€his€expert€witnesses.€€Valiga€admitted€someÐ \¬ Ðportions€of€the€house€were€not€torn€down€after€Waddell€ceased€work€because,€at€that€time,€it€was€feltÐ H˜ Ðthese€portions€had€ð ðsomeðð€value.€€Valiga€went€on€to€explain€that€during€the€course€of€making€repairs,Ð 4„ Ðproblems€were€encountered€with€the€portions€that€were€allowed€to€remain€resulting€in€additionalÐ  p Ðremedial€work.€€Valiga€testified€as€follows€with€regard€to€his€understanding€of€the€roles€of€GravesÐ  \ Ðand€Waddell€during€the€construction€of€his€house:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[Graves]€knew€a€number€of€folks€from€the€Riversound€projectÐ Ð  Ðthat€was€being€built€at€the€time.€€He€did€a€lot€of€negotiations€and€hiredÐ ¼  Ða€lot€of€the€subcontractors.€€He€seemed€to€be€a€person€that€was€quiteÐ ¨ø Ðknowledge[able]€about€the€business€end€of€building.ð8ðДä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMr.€Waddell€was€a€surveyor,€as€was€Mr.€Wheeler.€€They€bothÐ l¼ Ðhad€architect€degrees.€€Mr.€Waddell€was€going€to€help€do€some€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðdesign€changes€to€the€prints.€€He€was€going€to€ð!ð€I€believe€he€had€aÐ D!” Ðcontractorððs€license.€€He€was€going€to€be€a€ð!ð€I€guess€the€officialÐ 0"€  Ðcontractorððs€license€on€[the]€job€in€that€sense.€Ð#l!` x` x Їà  àà ` àValiga€called€Ben€Brabson€(ð ðBrabsonðð)€as€an€expert€witness.€€Brabson€is€a€certifiedÐ ° Ðresidential€real€estate€appraiser.€€Utilizing€pictures€and€other€information€on€the€house€as€it€existedÐ œì Ðin€February€1989,€Brabson€appraised€the€value€of€the€house€at€that€time.€€Brabson€testified€the€valueÐ ˆØ Ðof€house€would€have€been€$140,000€had€it€been€properly€constructed€and€completed€in€February€ofÐ tÄ Ð1989.€€As€to€the€value€of€the€unfinished€house€in€February€of€1989,€Brabson€testified:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€the€condition€it€was€in,€it€was€very€difficult€to€ð!ð€I€donððt€know€howÐ 8 ˆ Ðit€could€have€had€a€whole€lot€of€value€after€reading€some€of€thoseÐ $ t Ðreports€and€looking€at€the€pictures.ð8ð€€The€condition€the€house€wasÐ  ` Ðin,€I€donððt€know€what€kind€of€value€it€would€have€had.€€Probably€littleÐ ü L  Ðor€no€value.€Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌWhen€asked€if€the€house€as€it€then€existed€was€marketable,€Brabson€stated€he€found€it€hard€to€believeÐ À  Ðanyone€would€have€purchased€the€house€given€all€that€was€wrong€with€it.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àRichard€Bender€(ð ðBenderðð)€was€called€as€an€expert€witness€by€Defendants.€€BenderÐ „Ô  Ðperformed€design€work€and€prepared€sketches€for€the€Valiga€house.€€Benderððs€sketches€and€designÐ pÀ Ðwork€primarily€dealt€with€the€roof€structure.€€The€design€recommended€by€Bender€utilized€aÐ \¬ Ðcombination€of€trusses,€rafters,€and€structural€steel.€€Apparently,€the€design€developed€by€Bender€wasÐ H˜ Ðnot€used€by€Valiga.€€According€to€Bender,€if€Valiga€had€utilized€Benderððs€plans,€the€structural€steelÐ 4„ Ðwould€have€been€sufficient€to€hold€all€the€loading€that€was€required€in€this€house.€€Bender€testifiedÐ  p Ðrepairing€the€problems€with€the€house€could€have€been€accomplished€by€ð ðgetting€the€properÐ  \ Ðtechnicians€up€and€doing€it€and€getting€folks€up€there€that€wanted€to€do€itð8ð.ðð€€Bender€estimated€theÐ øH Ðrepairs€could€have€been€accomplished€by€two€or€three€people€and€the€repairs€would€have€taken€ð ðatÐ ä4 Ðthe€most€a€week€ð8ð€and€would€be€a€few€thousand€dollars€maximum€to€repair€it.ððÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€its€memorandum€opinion,€the€Trial€Court€observed€that€while€the€September€12,Ð ¨ø Ð1988,€contract€purportedly€was€between€R.H.€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.,€and€Valiga,€R.H.Ð ”ä ÐConstruction,€Inc.,€did€not€file€its€charter€with€the€Secretary€of€State€until€December€9,€1988,€andÐ €Ð Ðwith€the€Knox€County€Register€of€Deeds€until€January€12,€1989.€€The€construction€problems€existedÐ l¼ Ðbefore€the€charter€was€filed.€€The€Trial€Court€also€noted€while€the€charter€was€dated€August€19,Ð X ¨ Ð1988,€there€was€no€explanation€for€the€delay€in€the€filing.€€According€to€the€Trial€Court,€Waddell€andÐ D!” ÐGraves€entered€into€a€ð ðJoint€Venture€Agreementðð€which€ð ðmemorializes€their€partnership€status€andÐ 0"€  Ðtheir€partnership€obligations.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€emphasized€Waddell€testified€at€his€deposition€thatÐ #l! Ðsince€he€and€Mr.€Graves€were€in€a€ð ðpartnership,ðð€they€felt€they€needed€an€agreement€concerning€theirÐ $X" Ðstatus€on€the€job,€and€that€they€divided€the€contractor€fees.€€The€Trial€Court€then€stated:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Court€finds€that€the€evidence€is€overwhelming€that€RHÐ Ì&"% ÐWaddell€Construction,€Inc.,€was€a€general€partnership€consisting€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐMr.€Waddell€and€Mr.€Graves.€€Again€though,€and€for€furtherÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsideration€during€this€opinion,€the€Court€finds€that€[it]€isÐ )à$( Ðnoteworthy€and€should€be€kept€in€mind€that€Mr.€Waddell€received€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðsum€of€$2,000€for€services€as€an€architect€out€of€the€contractorððs€feeÐ h+¸&* Ðthatððs€embodied€in€the€contract€between€Mr.€Valiga€and€theÐ ° Ðpartnership€RH€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.Мì` x` x ÐÌà@ÙÙ'ìà*€*€*€*ˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[As€to€plaintiffððs€damages,]€the€defects€or€omission€were€soÐ L œ Ðsubstantial€as€to€render€the€construction€or€performance€worthless€ð8ðÐ8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà@ÙÙ'ìà*€*€*€*ˆÐ  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àHere€the€Court€finds€that€fair€and€reasonable€compensation€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€plaintiff€is€measured€by€all€sums€paid€by€the€plaintiff€under€theÐ Ô$  Ðcontract€of€$80,045.79,€together€with€prejudgment€interest€at€the€rateÐ À  Ðof€eight€percent€from€December€2,€1992,€being€the€date€that€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐValiga€commenced€his€action.Иè ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€then€proceeded€to€make€seven€additional€findings,€which€are:€(1)Ð pÀ ÐDefendants€should€have€rejected€the€trusses€which€were€delivered;€(2)€Defendants€did€not€install€theÐ \¬ Ðtrusses€according€to€the€layout€or€in€a€workmanlike€manner;€(3)€relying€on€the€testimony€of€Brabson,Ð H˜ Ðthe€construction€was€so€defective€it€had€a€zero€value€on€February€14,€1989;€(4)€after€ValigaÐ 4„ Ðterminated€Defendantsðð€services€on€November€9,€1988,€Valiga€permitted€them€to€return.€€DefendantsÐ  p Ðdid€not€remain€on€the€job€and€terminated€the€job€themselves,€with€full€knowledge€of€the€problems,Ð  \ Ðð ðthereby€electing€not€to€cure€the€problemsðð;€(5)€Valiga€was€more€credible€than€Defendants;€(6)€theÐ øH Ðwitnesses€for€Valiga,€including€Mr.€Johnson€and€Mr.€Thompson,€were€more€credible€than€Mr.Ð ä4 ÐBender,€Defendantsðð€witness;€and€(7)€the€Court€ð ðwas€unimpressed€with€Mr.€Benderððs€demeanorÐ Ð  Ðduring€his€testimony€as€well€as€the€content€of€his€testimony.ðð€€After€making€these€additional€findings,Ð ¼  Ðthe€Trial€Court€went€on€to€add:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Court€is€unaware€of€the€statute€of€limitations€having€beenÐ €Ð Ðraised,€but€Mr.€Valiga€did€not€even€commence€his€suit€against€theseÐ l¼ Ðdefendants,€Mr.€Graves€and€Mr.€Waddell,€until€more€than€three€yearsÐ X ¨ Ðfrom€February€14,€1989.€€Now,€it€may€be€that€other€matters€wouldÐ D!” Ðhave€to€be€taken€into€consideration€such€as€when€discovery€was€madeÐ 0"€  Ðof€defects€and€things€of€that€nature,€but€still,€the€suit€was€not€evenÐ #l! Ðcommenced€against€these€defendants€until€a€substantial€period€of€timeÐ $X" Ðhad€passed.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€February€2,€2001,€the€Trial€Court€entered€judgment€for€Valiga€for€$80,045.79,Ð Ì&"% Ðplus€prejudgment€interest€from€December€2,€1992.€€All€of€the€parties€filed€motions€to€alter€or€amendÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€judgment.€€As€pertinent€to€this€appeal,€Graves€contended€his€only€contact€with€this€situation€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€share€in€the€proceeds€and€he€did€not€participate€in€the€actual€building€which€took€place.€€GravesÐ )à$( Ðalso€contended€prejudgment€interest€was€not€proper€because€of€the€delay€between€when€suit€was€filedÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€when€the€trial€took€place,€which€delay€Graves€attributed€to€Valiga.€€Waddell€likewise€claimedÐ h+¸&* Ðprejudgment€interest€was€inappropriate€for€the€same€reasons.€€On€June€14,€2001,€Waddell€filed€aÐ ° ÐMotion€to€Amend€Pleadings€to€Conform€to€Evidence€Adduced€at€Trial,€seeking€to€amend€his€answerÐ œì Ðto€raise€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Graves€filed€a€similar€motion€on€July€9,€2001.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€ruled€on€all€pending€post„trial€motions€at€the€same€time.€€The€TrialÐ `° ÐCourt€concluded€Valiga€received€no€notice€of€a€statute€of€limitations€defense€prior€to€or€during€theÐ L œ Ðtrial,€ð ðand€that€the€issue€of€the€statute€of€limitations€was€not€tried,€either€expressly€or€impliedly.ðð€Ð 8 ˆ ÐAccordingly,€Defendantsðð€motions€to€amend€their€pleadings€to€assert€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ $ t Ðdefense€was€denied.€€The€Trial€Court€also€denied€the€partiesðð€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àWaddell€and€Graves€appeal.€€Both€Defendants€argue:€(1)€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€notÐ è 8  Ðallowing€them€to€amend€their€complaint€to€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense;€(2)€the€Trial€CourtÐ Ô$  Ðerred€in€awarding€prejudgment€interest;€and€(3)€the€Trial€Court€erred€by€imposing€personal€liability.€Ð À  ÐWaddell€also€argues€he€and€Graves€were€entitled€to€an€offset€for€the€value€of€the€ð ðportions€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstructure€that€were€constructed€prior€to€the€termination€of€the€contract€that€remain€a€part€of€the€houseÐ ˜è  Ðtoday.ððÐ „Ô  ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ \¬ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ 4„ Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ  p ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ  \ Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ øH Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ ä4 ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€discuss€Defendantsðð€argument€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€refused€toÐ ¨ø Ðallow€them€to€amend€their€answers€to€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Rule€15.02€of€the€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐR.€Civ.€P.€provides,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò ò€€€€Rule€15.02.€€Amendments€to€Conform€to€the€Evidence.€ð!ðó ó€WhenÐ X ¨ Ðissues€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€are€tried€by€express€or€impliedÐ H!˜ Ðconsent€of€the€parties,€they€shall€be€treated€in€all€respects€as€if€theyÐ 4"„  Ðhad€been€raised€in€the€pleadings.€€Such€amendment€of€the€pleadingsÐ  #p! Ðas€may€be€necessary€to€cause€them€to€conform€to€the€evidence€and€toÐ  $\" Ðraise€these€issues€may€be€made€upon€motion€of€any€party€at€any€time,Ð ø$H # Ðeven€after€judgment;€but€failure€so€to€amend€does€not€affect€the€resultÐ ä%4!$ Ðof€the€trial€of€these€issues.ð8ðÐÐ& "%` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendants€argue€the€issue€of€whether€the€statute€of€limitation€had€run€was€tried€byÐ ¨(ø#' Ðimplied€consent.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€Defendants€point€out€that€relevant€dates€wereÐ ”)ä$( Ðintroduced€at€trial€which€would€establish€this€defense.€€Whether€the€statute€of€limitations€issue€wasÐ €*Ð%) Ðtried€by€implied€consent€hinges€on€the€issues€that€were€actually€litigated,€and€the€failure€to€amendÐ l+¼&* Ðor€to€request€an€amendment€is€not€dispositive.€€òòMcLemore€v.€Powellóó,€968€S.W.2d€799,€803€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€1997).€€This€Court€in€òòMcLemoreóó€explained:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àGenerally€speaking,€trial€by€implied€consent€will€be€foundÐ tÄ Ðwhen€the€party€opposed€to€the€amendment€knew€or€reasonably€shouldÐ `° Ðhave€known€of€the€evidence€relating€to€the€new€issue,€did€not€objectÐ L œ Ðto€this€evidence,€and€was€not€prejudiced€thereby.€€òòId.óó€€As€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€inòò€Zack€Cheek€Builders,€Inc.€v.Ð $ t ÐMcLeodóó[,€597€S.W.2d€888,€890€(Tenn.€1980)]:Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xà"Implied€consent€...€is€much€more€difficult€to€establish€(thanÐ è 8  Ðexpress€consent)€and€seems€to€depend€on€whether€the€partiesÐ Ô$  Ðrecognized€that€an€issue€not€presented€by€the€pleadingsÐ À  Ðentered€the€case€at€trial.€€A€party€who€knowingly€acquiescesÐ ¬ü  Ðin€the€introduction€of€evidence€relating€to€issues€that€areÐ ˜è  Ðbeyond€the€pleadings€is€in€no€position€to€contest€a€motion€toÐ „Ô  Ðconform.€€Thus,€consent€generally€is€found€when€evidence€isÐ pÀ Ðintroduced€without€objection,€or€when€the€party€opposing€theÐ \¬ Ðmotion€to€amend€himself€produced€evidence€bearing€on€theÐ H˜ Ðnew€issue."Ð4„¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòId.óó€(quoting€6€Wright€&€Miller,€òòFederal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ððÐ  \ Ð1493,€at€462-63€(1971)).€€Trial€by€implied€consent€is€not€shown€byÐ øH Ðthe€presentation€of€evidence€that€is€relevant€to€an€unestablished€issueÐ ä4 Ðwhen€that€evidence€is€also€relevant€to€the€established€issue.òò€€Hiller€v.Ð Ð  ÐHaileyóó,€915€S.W.2d€800,€805€(Tenn.€App.1995)€(citations€omitted).м ` x` x ÐÌÌòòMcLemore€v.€Powellóó,€968€S.W.2d€799,€803€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendants€had€almost€eight€years€from€the€filing€of€the€complaint€until€trial€to€assertÐ X ¨ Ða€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€This€defense€certainly€was€not€expressly€raised€prior€to€or€at€trial,Ð D!” Ðas€evidenced€by€the€pleadings€and€the€Trial€Courtððs€statement€to€this€effect.€€This€issue€wasÐ 0"€  Ðmentioned€by€Defendants€(as€opposed€to€the€Trial€Court)€for€the€very€first€time€several€months€afterÐ #l! Ðthe€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€was€entered.€€We€agree€with€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€this€issueÐ $X" Ðwas€not€tried€by€implied€consent.€€Simply€because€relevant€dates€were€introduced€at€trial€does€notÐ ô$D # Ðmean€Valiga€was€aware€of€or€acquiesced€in€this€issue€being€tried.€€These€dates€were€relevant€to€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðissues€which€were€tried,€such€as€potential€damages,€etc.€€Proof€of€the€dates€when€events€occurred€inÐ Ì&"% Ðthis€case€was€nothing€more€than€evidence€which€was€relevant€to€an€established€issue€or€issues,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðð ð[t]rial€by€implied€consent€is€not€shown€by€the€presentation€of€evidence€that€is€relevant€to€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunestablished€issue€when€that€evidence€is€also€relevant€to€the€established€issue.ðð€€òòMcLemoreóó,€968Ð )à$( Ðâ âS.W.2d€at€803.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€determination€with€respect€to€the€issue€of€implied€consent€ð ðmustÐ |*Ì%) Ðbe€upheld€unless€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòHobbs€v.€Hobbsóó,€987€S.W.2d€844,€847Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€We€find€no€such€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€present€case.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àDefendants€next€argue€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€concluded€they€were€partners€andÐ tÄ Ðsubject€to€individual€liability.€€On€this€issue,€Defendants€make€separate€arguments.€€Waddell€reliesÐ `° Ðon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„12„104,€which€provides€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò ò€€€€48„12„104.€€Liability€for€preincorporation€transactions.€ð!ðó ó€€à @n àAllÐ $ t Ðpersons€purporting€to€act€as€or€on€behalf€of€a€corporation,€knowingÐ  d Ðthere€was€no€incorporation€under€chapters€11-27€of€this€title,€areÐ  P  Ðjointly€and€severally€liable€for€all€liabilities€created€while€so€actingÐ ì <  Ðexcept€for€any€liability€to€any€person€who€knew€or€reasonably€shouldÐ Ø(  Ðhave€known€that€there€was€no€incorporation.ÐÄ ` x` x ÐÌWaddell€argues€he€signed€the€necessary€paperwork€to€have€his€business€incorporated€and€wasÐ œì  Ðunaware€of€the€delay€in€filing€the€charter€with€the€Secretary€of€Stateððs€office.€€He€claims,€therefore,Ð ˆØ  Ðhe€did€not€ð ðknowðð€there€was€no€incorporation.€€Graves€argues€he€had€no€responsibility€on€theÐ tÄ Ðconstruction€project€and€there€were€insufficient€facts€to€conclude€he€was€in€a€partnership€or€jointÐ `° Ðventure€with€Waddell.Ð Lœ ÐÌà  àà ` àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„12„103,€absent€a€delayed€effective€date,€theÐ $t Ðð ðcorporate€existence€begins€when€the€charter€is€filed€by€the€secretary€of€state.ðð€€The€issues€of€whetherÐ ` ÐWaddell€ð ðknewðð€there€was€no€corporate€existence€and€whether€Waddell€and€Graves€intended€toÐ üL Ðcreate€a€partnership€or€joint€venture€are€primarily€factual€issues.€€In€resolving€the€factual€issuesÐ è8 Ðpresented€for€appeal,€we€must€keep€in€mind€the€Trial€Court€heard€the€conflicting€testimony€from€theÐ Ô$ Ðwitnesses.€€ð ðUnlike€this€Court,€the€trial€court€observed€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnessesÐ À Ðand€was€in€the€best€position€to€evaluate€their€credibility.ðð€€òòUnion€Planters€Natððl€Bank€v.€IslandÐ ¬ü ÐMgmt.€Auth.,€Inc.óó,€43€S.W.3d€498,€502€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€The€trial€courtððs€determinationsÐ ˜è Ðregarding€credibility,€as€to€those€witnesses€who€testified€live,€are€accorded€considerable€deferenceÐ „Ô Ðby€this€Court.€€òòId.óó;òò€Davis€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560,€563€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð pÀ Ðð ððð[A]ppellate€courts€will€not€re„evaluate€a€trial€judgeððs€assessment€of€witness€credibility€absent€clearÐ \ ¬ Ðand€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðððð€òòWells€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783Ð H!˜ Ð(Tenn.€1999).Ð 4"„  ÐÌà  àà ` àWaddell€apparently€signed€the€charter€on€August€19,€1988.€€On€September€12,€1988,Ð  $\" Ðthe€contract€was€signed€between€Valiga€and€R.H.€Waddell€Construction,€Inc.€€Two€months€later,€onÐ ø$H # ÐNovember€11,€1988,€Waddell€and€Graves€entered€into€the€Joint€Venture€Agreement.€€On€DecemberÐ ä%4!$ Ð9,€1988,€the€charter€was€filed€with€the€Secretary€of€Stateððs€office.€€Waddellððs€claim€he€did€notÐ Ð& "% Ðð ðknowðð€the€corporate€charter€had€not€been€filed€with€the€Secretary€of€State€is€belied€by€the€fact€heÐ ¼' #& Ðand€Graves€essentially€memorialized€their€relationship€in€writing€with€the€Joint€Venture€AgreementÐ ¨(ø#' Ðwhich€was€signed€after€Waddell€claims€he€ð ðthoughtðð€there€was€a€corporation€and€before€theÐ ”)ä$( Ðcorporation€actually€was€formed.€€Waddellððs€assertion€is€made€further€suspect€by€his€depositionÐ €*Ð%) Ðtestimony€that€he€and€Graves€were€ð ðpartners.ððÐ l+¼&* Їà  àà ` àIn€òòMesser€Griesheim€Indus.€Inc.,€v.€Cryotech€of€Kingsport,€Inc.óó,€45€S.W.3d€588Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),€this€Court€discussed€what€constitutes€a€partnership,€stating:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€partnership€is€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€61-1-105(a)€(Supp.1999)Ð tÄ Ðas€"an€association€of€two€(2)€or€more€persons€to€carry€on€as€coownersÐ `° Ða€business€for€profit.ð8ð"€€A€partnership€can€only€be€created€pursuantÐ L œ Ðto€a€contract€of€partnership,€though€such€an€agreement€may€be€eitherÐ 8 ˆ Ðexpress€or€implied.€€òòBass€v.€Bassóó,€814€S.W.2d€38,€41€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð $ t ÐTo€determine€whether€a€partnership€exists,€courts€must€ascertain€theÐ  ` Ðintention€of€the€parties.€òò€Id.óó€€In€the€absence€of€a€written€agreement,€theÐ ü L  Ðrequisite€intention€is€that€which€is€deducible€from€the€parties'€actions.€Ð è 8  ÐòòWyatt€v.€Brownóó,€39€Tenn.€App.€28,€33,€281€S.W.2d€64,€67€(1955).€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€parties€need€only€intend€"to€do€the€things€which€constitute€aÐ À  Ðpartnership."€€òòBassóó,€814€S.W.2d€at€41.€€A€partnership€results€if€theÐ ¬ü  Ðparties€"place€their€money,€assets,€labor,€or€skill€in€commerce€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðunderstanding€that€profits€will€be€shared€between€them."€€òòId.óó€€It€is€notÐ „Ô  Ðnecessary€that€the€parties€intend€to€actually€form€a€partnership€or€evenÐ pÀ Ðthat€they€know€the€legal€result€of€their€actions€is€to€create€aÐ \¬ Ðpartnership.€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€the€terminology€used€by€the€parties€toÐ H˜ Ðdescribe€their€business€relationship€is€of€little€import.€€òòId.óóÐ4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€determination€of€whether€a€partnership€exists€must€beÐ  \ Ðmade€"upon€consideration€of€all€relevant€facts,€actions,€and€conductÐ øH Ðof€the€parties,"€òòid.óó,€and€the€burden€of€proof€rests€on€the€party€seekingÐ ä4 Ðto€establish€the€existence€of€a€partnership.€€òòMullins€v.€Evansóó,€43€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€330,€338,€308€S.W.2d€494,€498€(1957).€€"Generally,€what€willÐ ¼  Ðconstitute€a€partnership€is€a€matter€of€law,€but€whether€a€partnershipÐ ¨ø Ðexists€under€conflicting€evidence€is€one€of€fact."€€òòWyattóó,€281€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ðat€68.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€joint€venture€is€similar,€but€not€identical,€to€a€partnership,Ð X ¨ Ðand€has€been€described€by€our€Supreme€Court€as€"something€like€aÐ D!” Ðpartnership,€for€a€more€limited€period€of€time,€and€a€more€limitedÐ 0"€  Ðpurpose."€€òòFain€v.€O'Connellóó,€909€S.W.2d€790,€792€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð #l! ÐJoint€ventures€are€governed€by€the€same€rules€of€law€as€thoseÐ $X" Ðgoverning€partnerships.€€òòFederated€Stores€Realty,€Inc.€v.€Huddlestonóó,Ð ô$D # Ð852€S.W.2d€206,€212€(Tenn.€1992).Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌòòMesser€Griesheimóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€605„06.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€on€the€roles€occupied€by€Waddell€and€Graves€during€the€construction€ofÐ )à$( ÐValigaððs€house,€coupled€with:€1)€the€terms€of€Joint€Venture€Agreement;€2)€Waddellððs€depositionÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestimony€he€and€Graves€were€ð ðpartnersðð;€3)€Gravesðð€testimony€that€he€spent€a€significant€amountÐ h+¸&* Ðof€time€at€the€work€site;€and€4)€Waddell€and€Graves€dividing€the€contractorððs€fee,€we€conclude€theÐ ° Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€leading€to€its€conclusion€thatÐ œì ÐWaddell€and€Graves€were€partners.€€We€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€holding€that€both€Defendants€areÐ ˆØ Ðpersonally€liable.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€next€issue€is€Defendant€Waddellððs€claim€he€and€Graves€were€entitled€to€an€offsetÐ L œ Ðfor€the€value€of€the€ð ðportions€of€the€structure€that€were€constructed€prior€to€the€termination€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontract€that€remain€a€part€of€the€house€today.ðð€€In€other€words,€Defendants€challenge€the€TrialÐ $ t ÐCourtððs€conclusion€that€the€value€of€the€house€when€Waddell€and€Graves€terminated€their€servicesÐ  ` Ðwas€$0.00.€€In€reaching€this€conclusion,€the€Trial€Court€relied€on€Brabsonððs€testimony€as€set€forthÐ ü L  Ðpreviously€in€this€opinion.€€Defendantsðð€challenge€on€appeal€relies€exclusively€on€Valigaððs€testimonyÐ è 8  Ðthat€he€allowed€a€portion€of€the€house€to€remain€because€at€that€time€he€thought€it€had€ð ðsomeðð€value.€Ð Ô$  ÐThis€argument€ignores€Valigaððs€later€testimony.€€Specifically,€Valiga€went€on€to€explain€that€afterÐ À  Ðleaving€these€portions€of€the€house€standing€because€he€thought€they€had€some€value,€furtherÐ ¬ü  Ðproblems€were€encountered.€€At€trial,€Defendants€offered€no€expert€testimony€as€to€the€value€of€thoseÐ ˜è  Ðportions€of€the€house€that€were€not€demolished€after€Waddell€and€Graves€ceased€work.€€Accordingly,Ð „Ô  Ðwe€conclude€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€the€house€wasÐ pÀ Ðð ðworthlessðð€at€that€time.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€final€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€awarding€prejudgmentÐ 4„ Ðinterest€beginning€on€December€2,€1992,€the€day€Valiga€filed€his€complaint.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„Ð  p Ð14„123€provides€prejudgment€interest€may€be€awarded€as€an€element€of€damages€ð ðin€accordance€withÐ  \ Ðthe€principles€of€equity€at€any€rate€not€in€excess€of€a€maximum€effective€rate€of€ten€percent€(10%).ðð€Ð øH ÐAn€award€of€prejudgment€interest€ð ðis€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€the€decisionÐ ä4 Ðwill€not€be€disturbed€upon€appellate€review€unless€the€record€reveals€a€manifest€and€palpable€abuseÐ Ð  Ðof€discretion.ðð€€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mutual€Fire€Insurance€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€446€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð ¼  ÐIn€òòScholz€v.€S.B.€International,€Inc.óó,€40€S.W.3d€78€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),€we€noted€that€the:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€shifted€the€balance€to€favor€awardingÐ €Ð Ðprejudgment€interest€whenever€doing€so€will€more€fully€compensateÐ l¼ Ðplaintiffs€for€the€loss€of€use€of€their€funds.€€Fairness€will,€in€almost€allÐ X ¨ Ðcases,€require€that€a€successful€plaintiff€be€fully€compensated€by€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€for€all€losses€caused€by€the€defendant,€including€the€loss€ofÐ 0"€  Ðuse€of€money€the€plaintiff€should€have€received.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€83€(citing€òòMyint€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€970€S.W.2d€920€(Tenn.€1998)).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€òòScholzóó€Court€pointed€out€prejudgment€interest€may€not€be€appropriate€when,€òòinterÐ Ì&"% Ðaliaóó,€the€party€seeking€prejudgment€interest€has€ð ðunreasonably€delayedðð€the€lawsuit€or€been€ð ðsoÐ ¸'#& Ðinexcusably€dilatory€in€pursuing€a€claim€that€consideration€of€a€claim€based€on€loss€of€use€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmoney€would€have€little€weightðð.€€òòScholzóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€83.€€In€the€present€case,€Defendantsðð€mainÐ )à$( Ðargument€is€prejudgment€interest€is€not€appropriate€because€of€the€lengthy€delay€between€the€timeÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€complaint€was€filed€and€this€case€went€to€trial.€€We€agree€this€case€took€a€long€time€to€get€to€trial.€Ð h+¸&* ÐDefendants,€however,€have€pointed€to€nothing€in€the€record€to€establish€any€inappropriate€conductÐ ° Ðon€the€part€of€Valiga€which€needlessly€delayed€this€litigation.€€Assuming,€arguendo,€that€there€wereÐ œì Ðdelays€which€were€out€of€the€ordinary,€we€cannot€assume€Valiga€was€responsible€for€the€delays€anyÐ ˆØ Ðmore€than€we€can€assume€Defendants€were€responsible.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€cannotÐ tÄ Ðconclude€the€Trial€Courtððs€award€of€prejudgment€interest€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ð `° ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ  ` ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ ü L  Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€equally€against€the€Appellants€RobertÐ è 8  ÐH.€Waddell€and€John€Graves,€and€their€sureties.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ 4„ Ð