WPC= |,ћj,T}B$ec ${E+0LWdbO_@shH>2 gWWNo MrdP}\ia8O1zlF>PtC5G5b5m,4/Dd%^qNv"+*j>kPv'.wI΁qOQIBӆę nM~nkbI$"qOǷb ";.$b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # 0U   r 8 0N 0 0E 0 0| 0S 0' 0 0C 0  0 0 0s 0; 0 0 0 0@; 0{ 0I 0 0 0 0c 0"! 0!b" 1"UJ$# 0Dn##p) 72- 1u3- 72- 0c- 1=. 72.U@.86/n34UN77777888888888888888 08888 B99 09 D39 D-9 0K#:#: ASn:: 0; 0D+< Ao<{)-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],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.wpt UHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  - -(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1..\  `2Times New Roman Greek(#$  0    R4$      4    _ԀThefactthatthenameDexterSouthPartners,Ltd.seemstoimplytheexistenceofacorporationor  partnershiparrangementisnotdeterminative.  In Sykesv.Cooper ,No.8452II,1985Tenn.App.LEXIS2780(Tenn. x Ct.App.Mar.29,1985),theplaintiffwasthesoleownerofacorporationwhosecorporatecharterwasrevoked; @ however,theplaintiffcontinuedtooperatethebusinessunderthenameofthecorporation. Sykes ,1985Tenn.App. X LEXIS2780, at*2.Theplaintifflatersuedthedefendanttocollectonanotewhichwasexecutedafterthecharterwas   revoked. Id. Similartothedefendantsinthiscase,thedefendantin Sykes argued thatthenoteshehadsignedwasvoid  andunenforceablebecauseitspayeewasanonexistentcorporation. Id. at*3.Thetrialcourt,however,heldthat `   [w]hilethiscasedemonstratesthefollyofusingatradenameimplyingacorporateexistence,wecannotsaythat ( x [plaintiffs]decisiontodosoisenoughtorelieve[defendant]ofanyfurtherliabilityunderhernote. Id. at*7.  @ Ѐ  R4$      2    _XXԀ#XX~#TheapplicableversionofTennesseeCodeAnnotated0 # 0#Ԁ2918125provides:  8  Inallcasesofforcibleentryanddetainer,forcibledetainer,andunlawfuldetainer,thejudgeofthe h courtofgeneralsessionstryingthecauseshallbeauthorizedanditshallbehisduty,ifhisjudgment 0 shallbethattheplaintiffrecoverthepossession,toascertainthearrearageofrent,andinterest,and H damages,ifany,andrenderjudgmenttherefor.   Tenn.CodeAnn.2918125(LEXISthrough1996Supp.)(emphasisadded)/1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)5i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.81.(hH  Z(Times New Roman  . R4$      1    _ԀIntherecordinthiscase,theactionisreferredtoasoneforforcibleentryand_detainer_Ԁ(_F.E.D._).The  applicablestatutereferstoitasanactionforunlawful_detainer_.TennesseeCodeAnnotated0 # 0#Ԁ2918104provides: x 8  Unlawful_detainer_Ԁiswherethedefendantentersbycontract,eitherastenantorasassigneeofatenant, d oraspersonalrepresentativeofatenant,orassubtenant,orbycollusionwithatenant,and,ineither , case,willfullyandwithoutforce,holdsoverthepossessionfromthelandlord,ortheassigneeofthe  remainderorreversion.l    Tenn.CodeAnn.2918104(2000). z R4$      5    _ԀThereasonforthisdisparityisthatthesettlingguarantorsmadetheirpaymentsbeforethebankruptcycourt  madeits$29,759.32award.Asitturnedout,thesettlingguarantorsmayhavepaidmorethantheirproportionateshare.  R4$      3    _ԀThedefendantguarantorsdidnotraisetheissueofthegeneralsessionscourtsjurisdictionallimits.  However,itappearsthattheamountofdamagesCrewsseekstorecover,takingintoaccounttheamountsCrews x receivedinbankruptcyandfromtheothersettlingguarantors,iswithinthatcourts$25,000jurisdictionallimit. See @  Tenn.CodeAnn.0 # 0-#Ԁ1615501(d)(2)(A)(2001Supp.).(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular       (|G24$ !.8Ldd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ldd8     _  L8XXdd8  ??c@Oa@ LINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#L.#Ԉ ,   February19,2002Session X XXL #LXX#CHARLESECREWS,d/b/aDEXTERRIDGESHOPPINGCENTER  ` v. ( x MICHAELL.CAHHAL,BOBBIES.CAHHAL,NANCYNICHOLS,R. @  BRETTAYLOR,KENNETHHILL,andEVELYNLORRAINEHENDRIXXXL  X  @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty `  @@No.828353KarenR.Williams,Judge P  @@*AV) ` dE</` A 0  @@TTNo.W199902354_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember9,_2002_ /  AV) ` dE<` A _    Thisisabreachofcontractcase.Theplaintiffdeveloperleasedspacetoacorporationforuseasa ^ restaurant.Theshareholdersofthecorporationenteredintoaseparateagreementwiththedeveloper N toguaranteethelease.Thecorporationdefaultedonthelease.Thedeveloperfiledunlawfuldetainer > warrantsingeneralsessionscourtagainstboththecorporationandtheshareholderguarantors. . Thereafter,thecorporationfiledforbankruptcy,thusstayingthegeneralsessionscourtproceedings  astothecorporation.Thegeneralsessionscourtdismissedtheentireaction,includingtheclaim  againsttheguarantors,becausethebankruptcystaypreventedthedeveloperfromrecovering  possession.Thisdecisionwasappealedtocircuitcourt.Meanwhile,thedeveloperhadfileda  secondlawsuitforbreachofcontractagainsttheguarantors.Thesecondlawsuitwasconsolidated  withtheappealoftheunlawfuldetaineractionpendingincircuitcourt.Afteratrial,thecircuitcourt ~ affirmedthedismissaloftheunlawfuldetaineractionanddismissedthebreachofcontractaction n basedonthedoctrineofformersuitpending.Thisappealfollowed.Wereverseandremand, ^ finding,interalia,thattheactioningeneralsessionscourtagainsttheguarantorswasforbreachof N  contractand,therefore,recoveryofpossessionofthepremiseswasnotrequiredinordertoobtain >! anawardofdamagesagainsttheguarantors. ."~     Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisReversedand $^" Remanded  $N # f #LXE#XX.LHollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., &."% W.S.,andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. '#& JulieC.Bartholomew,Somerville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CharlesE.Crews,d/b/aDexter )$( RidgeShoppingCenter. *%) KeithV.Moore,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellees,MichaelL.Cahhal,BobbieS.Cahhal, ~,'+ NancyNichols,R.BretTaylor,KennethHill,andEvelynLorraineHendrix. n-(, Ї   OPINION #LXX2 #XXL     ThePlaintiff/AppellantCharlesCrews( Crews)isthesoleowneroftheDexterRidge p ShoppingCenter.Defendants/AppelleesMichaelL.Cahhal,BobbieS.Cahhal,NancyNichols,R. `  BretTaylor,KennethHillandEvelynLorraineHendrix(collectively defendants)areshareholders P  ofLouisianaCuisine,Inc.( LouisianaCuisine). @    In1992,CrewspurchasedatractoflandtodevelopintotheDexterRidgeShoppingCenter  p  ( DexterRidge)#LXX#XXLԀandestablishedasoleproprietorshipunderthename DexterSouthPartners,Ltd. `  ( DexterSouth)#LXXé#XXLԀtoconductdevelopmentandleasingoperations#LXXo#XXL.#LXX#XXLInDecember1992,DexterSouth P  enteredintoanagreementwithLouisianaCuisineto#LXX$#XXLԀleasespaceinDexterRidge.Thelease @  providedthat,incaseofdefault,thelandlordhadtheoptionofterminatingthelease.Ifthelease 0  wereterminated,thetenant,LouisianaCuisine,wouldbeliablefor thesumofallrentalandother   indebtednessaccruedtodateofsuchtermination.Theleasealsoprovidedthatthe Tenantshall  beliablefor...allreasonableexpensesincurredbyLandlordinenforcingordefendingLandlords  rightsand/orremediesincludingreasonableattorneysfees.Therentalamountdueunderthelease  was$7,568monthly.    Inconnectionwiththelease,LouisianaCuisinesnineindividualshareholdersexecuteda p guarantyagreement.Theguarantyagreementprovided: ` [T]heundersigned( Guarantor),herebyseverally(iftherebemorethanone @ Guarantor)guaranteethepaymentbyLesseetoLessoritssuccessorsandassigns,of 0 allsums(includingallapplicableattorneysfeesandothercostsandexpensesof  p collection)dueorbecomingdueundertheforegoingCommercialLeaseAgreement ` ( LeaseAgreement)andthefullperformanceofallotherobligationsofLessee P providedthereunder. @ Thus,eachguarantoragreed,intheeventofdefaultbyLouisianaCuisine,tobeliableforsumsdue   toDexterSouthfromLouisianaCuisine.Theguarantyagreementclarifiedthateachshareholder ! guarantorwouldbe severallyliablefor[his]proportionateshareoftheleaseper[his]individual "  ownershippercentageinLouisianaCuisine,Inc.#LXX#XXL #!   ByJanuary1994,LouisianaCuisinehadbegunoperatingtherestaurantinDexterRidgeand % # hadbegunpayingrent.Inspring1996,LouisianaCuisinefailedtopaytherequiredrent.InMay p&!$ 1996,after#LXXô#XXLԀLouisianaCuisinehadfailedtopayrentforthreemonths,Crewsfileddetainerwarrants `'"%  intheGeneralSessionsCourt#LXX#XXLofShelbyCounty( generalsessionscourt)againstLouisianaCuisine P(#& andeachoftheguarantorshareholders.; 1#  1      ׀Afterthedetainerwarrantswerefiled,#LXX#XXLԀLouisianaCuisine   filedforChapter11bankruptcyprotection.OnceLouisianaCuisinefiledforbankruptcy,the  automaticstayprovisionsofthebankruptcycodeprecludedCrewsfromrecoveringpossessionof  thepremises. See 11U.S.C.S.0XKXXX#XXX0XK!##LXX& #XXLԀ362(a)(3)(1995).#LXX!#XXLTheshareholderguarantorsthenmadeanoral  motiontodismiss.Thegeneralsessionscourtfoundthat,becausetheautomaticstaypreventedthe  courtfromenteringajudgmentforpossession,Tennessee#LXXE"#XXLԀCodeAnnotated0XKXXX#0FGX0XKx###L0FG##XXLԀ2918125#LXX$#  XXL3 1#  2      ׀also p  prohibitedthecourtfromorderingmonetarydamages#LXXh$#XXL.Onthisbasis,thegeneralsessionscourt p  dismissedtheentireaction,includingtheactionagainsttheshareholderguarantors.#LXXJ%#XXLThegeneral `  sessionscourtdidnotenterawrittenorderofdismissalatthattime.#LXX$&#XXLԀ P  #LXX&#XXL  Meanwhile,onJuly22,1996,CrewsfiledabreachofcontractlawsuitinShelbyCounty 0  ChanceryCourt( chancerycourt)againsttheshareholderguarantors,butnotLouisianaCuisine,  p  seekingdamagesundertheguarantyagreement.#LXX%'#XXLSubsequently,onOctober11,1996,thegeneral `  sessionscourtissueditswrittenorderofdismissalintheunlawfuldetaineraction.Despitethefact P  thatthedismissalwasbasedonthetemporarybankruptcystay,thewrittenorderindicatedthatthe @  dismissalwaswithprejudice.#LXXÈ(#XXLCrewsthenappealedthegeneralsessionsordertotheShelbyCounty 0 CircuitCourt( circuitcourt).Crews#LXX *#XXLԀsubsequentlyfiled#LXX*#XXLԀamotionwiththecircuitcourttotransfer   andconsolidatethependingappealintheunlawfuldetaineractionwithhisbreachofcontractlawsuit  pendinginchancerycourt.#LXX<+#XXLHowever,onDecember3,1996,thechancerycourt#LXXV,#XXLԀtransferredthe  breachofcontractcasetocircuitcourtforconsolidationwiththeappealintheunlawful_detainer_  action#LXX,#XXL.    Afterthetwolawsuitswereconsolidatedincircuitcourt,Crewsfiledamotionforsummary p  judgment.Themotionasserted: `  ` 2.ThattheDefendantsagainstwhomsummaryjudgmentissoughtarethe   comakersofawrittenGuarantyAgreementwhichisunconditionalinitstermsand  requiresproratapaymentbyDefendantsofallsumsdueunderawrittenLease  Agreementintheeventofdefaultinpaymentbythelessee,LouisianaCuisine,  Inc..... p  ` 3.ThatadefaultinpaymentundertheLeaseAgreementbyLouisiana P  Cuisine,Inc.hasoccurred,thattheamountpresentlydueis$39,732.00pluscostsof @  collection,includingreasonableattorneysfees,andthatDefendantshavefailedand 0  refusedtomakepaymenttoPlaintiffoftheirproratashareoftheaforesaid  p  indebtedness. `  .#LXX-#XXLOnApril7,1997,thedefendantguarantorsfiledamotiontodismissagainstCrews.Theguarantors @  motionnotedthat#LXXÕ2#XXLCrewsbreachofcontractlawsuitwasfiledinchancerycourt,#LXXe3#XXLԀwhiletheunlawful 0  detaineractionwaspendingingeneralsessionscourt,#LXX3#XXLԀandassertedthatthetwolawsuitsinvolved   substantiallythesamepartiesandissues.Thus,thedefendantsargued,Crewssecondlawsuitin  chancerycourtwasbarredbythedoctrineof formersuitpending.#LXXÈ4#XXLԀ#LXX5#XXLThedefendantguarantorsalso  filedamotionforsummaryjudgment,assertingthatthepartythatexecutedtheguarantyagreement,  DexterSouth,hadnotacquiredacorporatecharter,hadnotregisteredwiththesecretaryofstateas  alimitedpartnershipand,further,hadnotbeengrantedabusinesslicense.Onthisbasis,the  defendantguarantorsassertedthatDexterSouthcouldnotlawfullyenterintoacontractsuchasthe p guarantyagreement. `   InAugust1998,atrialwasheldontheconsolidatedlawsuits.Theonlywitnessatthetrial @ wasCrewsagent#LXX6#XXL,MikeSlattery.SlatterytestifiedthathewaspersonallyfamiliarwithCrews 0 leasingoperations,andfurthertestifiedthatthetotalsumdueundertheleasewithLouisianaCuisine  p was$57,552.30,whichincludedunpaidrent,latefees,attorneysfees,andprejudgmentinterest. ` Thepartiesstipulatedthatthisamountshouldbereducedby$29,759.32,whichistheamount P receivedfromLouisianaCuisineinthebankruptcyproceedings#LXX 9#XXL.Thepartiesalsostipulatedthat @ Crewshadreceived$15,282.00fromthreeoftheguarantorswhosettledpriortotrial.Oncross 0 examination,SlatteryacknowledgedthattheguarantyagreementraninfavorofDexterSouthand   thatDexterSouthwasnotacorporationorapartnershipandhadneveracquiredabusinesslicense. ! _Slattery_ԀsaidthatDexterSouthheldnointerestintheleasedproperty,andthattherewasno "  assignmentofrightsfromDexterSouthtoCrews#LXXo;#XXL. #!   O#LXX>#XXLnFebruary1,1999,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdismissingbothlawsuits.Thetrialcourt % # madethefollowingfindingsoffact: p&!$  /(5h835#LXXt>#XXL1.Thiscaseoriginatedasan[unlawfuldetainer]actionintheGeneralSessions P(#& CourtseekingpossessionofpropertyandamonetaryJudgmentagainstcertain @)$'  guarantorsnamedasDefendantsinthesaidaction. 0*%( 2.TheDefendant,LouisianaCuisine,Inc.,filedforprotectionunderChapter11   oftheUnitedStatesBankruptcyActwhicharrestedanyactioninthatCourtand  pursuanttoT.C.A.0XKXXX#0FGX0XK@##L0FG%B#XXLԀ2918125#LXXÎB#XXL,noJudgmentcouldbeawardedagainstthenamed  guarantors.  3.ThismatterwasappealedtotheCircuitCourtwhereitsubsequentlycameto p  trial.Duringtheinterim,thePlaintifffiledanactionintheChanceryCourtseeking `  thesameJudgmentagainsttheguarantorsaswassoughtinher[sic]appealfrom P  GeneralSessions. @  ЀTheDefendantsfiledaMotiontoDismissonthebasisofaformersuit  p  pendingwhichthisCourtholdsiswelltakenandthattheChanceryactionwhichwas `  transferredandconsolidatedwiththeGeneralSessionsAppealshouldbeandwas P  dismissed. @   8(Eh88/! !4.Atthetrial,aMr.MikeSlatterywasofferedastheonlywitnessforthe   Plaintiff.Hetestifiedthattheguarantorsagreementraninfavorofabusinessentity  knownasDexterSouthPartners,LTD.  'XX XX'ӀHetestifiedthatDextersouth[sic]Partners,LTDhadneveracquiredacorporate  charter,neverappliedforabusinesslicense,neveracquiredtitletotheproperty  whichwasthesubjectoftheleaseandtheguarantyagreement,andthatDextersouth p [sic]Partners,LTDneverexecutedanykindofassignmentorotherdocument ` transferringitsrighttobethebeneficiaryoftheguarantytoanotherpartyand P particularlytothePlaintiff,CharlesR.[sic]Crews. @   FromallofwhichthisCourtheldandstillholdsthatthePlaintiffhasshown  p nolegalrighttoholdtheseDefendantsliableforthisdebtordefaultofLouisiana ` Cuisine,Inc. P 5.BaseduponthetestimonyandcrossexaminationofMr.Slattery,theCourt  0 furtherfoundasamatteroffact,thattheexhibitedWarrantyDeedtotheleased !  propertyshowsthatthesaidpropertywasconveyedbyDeeddatedJuly24,1992,and "  thattheguarantyagreementwasdatedJune3,1992.ThesaidDeedwasbetweenW. #! TerryEdwards,TrusteeandCharlesE.Crews. $" 6.TheCourtfurtherfindsthatDexterSouthPartners,LTD,wasnotincorporated &!$ andcouldnotdoanybusinessuntilandunlessitacquiredacorporatecharter.It, p'"% therefore,wasnotaproperpartytotheGuarantyAgreement. `(#& 7.  Lastly,theCourtrulesthatMr.Slatteryneverprovedanyrealdamagesinthat @*%(  hetestifiedthatthePlaintiffreceivedmoremoneyfromtheTrusteeinBankruptcy 0+&) thantheamountofitsclaimforrent,andexhibitednoawardofattorneyfeesfrom  thatCourtoranyother.   ?$Thetrialcourtalsoenteredthefollowingconclusions:O  (a)ThatthePlaintifffailedtomakeacaseagainsttheseDefendantsasguarantors `  ofthisPlaintiffwhoneverappearedtobethebeneficiaryoftheguarantyexhibited P  inthiscase. @  (b)ThattheactionfiledinChanceryandconsolidatedshouldbedismissedonthe  p  legalbasisofaformersuitpending; `  (c)ThattheautomaticstaystillappliesandsincethePlaintiffisnotentitledto @  possessionheisnotentitledtoaJudgmentforarrears;asprovidedforinT.C.A.0XKXXX#0FGX0XKB#0XKX0FG#XXX0XKR# 0  2918125. 0  (d)ThatthePlaintiffhasfailedtoproveanydamagesaboveandbeyondthe  amountscollectedintheBankruptcyCourt.  MP r Thus,thetrialcourtheldthatCrewscouldnotenforcetheguarantyexecutedbyDexterSouth.  ItalsoheldthatthesecondlawsuitfiledbyCrews,inchancerycourt,wasbarredbythedoctrineof  formersuitpending.ItfoundthatthefirstlawsuitfiledbyCrewsagainsttheguarantors,ingeneral p sessionscourt,shouldbedismissedbecausethebankruptcystaypreventedCrewsfromobtaining ` possessionoftheleasedspace.Finally,thetrialcourtfoundthatCrewshadnotprovenanydamages P beyondtheapproximately$29,000hereceivedinbankruptcycourt.Thus,bothoftheconsolidated @ casesweredismissed.Fromthisorder,Crewsnowappeals. 0  r Onappeal,Crewsarguesthatthefactthatthebankruptcystaypreventedhimfromobtaining ` possessionofthepremisesdidnotmandatedismissalofhisclaimagainsttheguarantorsingeneral P sessionscourtunderTennesseeCodeAnnotated2918125.Crewsalsocontendsthatthetrialcourt @ erredinholdingthathecouldnotenforcetheguarantyagreementexecutedinthenameofDexter  0 South,andmaintainsthatheproveddamagesundertheguarantyagreementinexcessoftheamount !  hereceivedinthebankruptcyproceedings.Astothesecondlawsuitagainsttheguarantorsfiledin "  chancerycourt,Crewsassertsthatitwasnotbarredbythedoctrineofformersuitpending,andthat #! thetrialcourterredindenyinghismotionforsummaryjudgment.#LXXS#* ,XXXX X*XXL $"   Becausethiscasewastriedbythecourtsittingwithoutajury,thetrialcourtsfactual &!$ findingsarerevieweddenovoaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessunlessthe p'"% preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35 `(#& (Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Thetrialcourtslegalconclusionsarerevieweddenovowith P)$'  nopresumptionofcorrectness. Campbell ,919S.W.2dat35.#LXXE[#XXL @*%( ??c ? ?    Wefirstaddress#LXX]#XXLԀthetrialcourtsfindingthatTennesseeCodeAnnotated0XKXXX#0FGX0XK^##L0FG^#XXLԀ2918125#LXXS_#XXLԀbarred   Crewsunlawful_detainer_Ԁactionagainsttheguarantors.Thisfindingwasbasedonthefactthatthe  automaticstayinbankruptcypreventedCrewsfromobtainingpossessionoftheleasedspace.On  appeal,Crewscontendsthat, [_t]here_Ԁissimplynobasisforconcludingthatthisstatutewasintended  topreventalandlord...fromobtainingamoneyjudgmentfromguarantors...whoarenamedas  DefendantsintheFEDsuitinadditiontotheprincipaldebtor/tenant,andwhoarenotinpossession p  oftherealproperty. `    #LXXß_#XXLSection2918125providesthat,inacaseofunlawful_detainer_Ԁor_F.E.D._,itisthe dutyof @  thegeneralsessionsjudge, ifhisjudgmentshallbethattheplaintiffrecoverpossession,to 0   determinethearrearageinrentandrenderajudgmentforthearrearage,aswellasanyinterestand  p  damages. See Tenn.CodeAnn.2918125#LXXb#XXL.Inconstruingthisstatute,we:XXXXԀmust ascertainandgive `  effecttothelegislativeintent. Sharpv.Richardson ,937S.W.2d846,850(Tenn.1996).Inthe P  absenceofambiguity,legislativeintentisderivedfromthefaceofastatute,andthecourtmaynot @  departfromthe naturalandordinarymeaningofthestatuteslanguage. Davisv.Reagan ,951 0  S.W.2d766,768(Tenn.1997); WestlandW._Cmty_._Assn_Ԁv.KnoxCounty ,948S.W.2d281,283   (Tenn.1997).#XXX:XFe##LXXe#XXLԀ#LXX/h#XXLThepurposebehindtheunlawful_detainer_Ԁstatute#LXXsh#XXLԀ#LXXi#XXLԀis toprovideanactionto  determinetherightofpossessionofrealproperty. Cain_Pship_Ԁv.PioneerInv._Servs_. ,914S.W.2d  452,457(Tenn.1996)Anunlawful_detainer_Ԁactionisprimarilyoneforpossession,andajudgment  forrentanddamagesareincidentaltothejudgmentforpossession.  #LXXHi#XXLԀ#LXXpk#XXL SeeNashville_Hous_.Auth.v.  _Kinnard_ ,207S.W.2d1019,1021(Tenn.1948); seealso 36A_C.J.S._ԀForcibleEntry&_Detainer_0XKXXX#XXX0XKl##LXXók#XXL  58(1961)( [_D]amages_Ԁcanbeallowedplaintiffonlyasanincidenttotherightofpossession;and,  ifhefailstoproveanunlawful_detainer_,plaintiffcannotbeawardeddamages.(footnotesomitted)). p Thus,  TennesseeCodeAnnotated0XKXXX#0FGX0XKfm##L0FGn#XXLԀ2918125providesavehiclefortheplaintifftorecoverboth ` possessionanddamagesfromoneinunlawfulpossession.#LXXho#XXL `   #LXX6p#XXL However,astothedefendantguarantors,theclaimisnotonetorecoverpossession,but @ rathertorecoverdamagesdueundertheguarantyagreement.#LXXßp#XXLIn FletcherBrightCo.v._Darr_ ,No. 0 03A019308CV00277,1994Tenn.App.LEXIS123(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.9,1994),thecourt  p distinguishedaclaimforunlawful_detainer_Ԁbroughtagainstalesseefromaclaimforbreachof  ` contractbroughtagainstthelesseesguarantor.#LXXÑq#XXLAsinthiscase,theplaintiffin Fletcher instituted !P thecaseingeneralsessionscourtbyfiling_detainer_Ԁwarrantsagainstthelesseeandhisguarantor. !@  Id. at*1.Thegeneralsessionscourtrenderedajudgmentagainstthedefendantsintheamountof "0  $18,634.34. Id .Onappeal,thecourtaddressedtheissueofwhetherthegeneralsessionscourts # ! unlimitedoriginaljurisdictionin_detainer_Ԁactions#LXXls#XXLԀextendedtotheclaimagainsttheguarantor.#LXXu#XXLԀThe $ " Courtfirstnoted: %!# Bywayofbackground,itappearsthatacauseofactionforunlawfuldetainercame '"% intobeingasaresultoftheenactmentofChapter14ofthePublicActsof1821,and (#& thatthegistoftheactioniswrongfulentryorwrongfuldetainer. Philipsv. p)$' Sampson ,39Tenn.429(1859).Additionally, Weigandv.Malatesta ,46Tenn.362 `*%( (1869),holdsthatitisinthenatureofanactionfortort,notcontract,although P+&)  NashvilleHousingAuthorityv.Kinnard ,186Tenn.33,207S.W.2d1019(1948), @,'* @Oa @ @  recognizesthatdamagesandrentsmaybeawardedasanincidenttoajudgmentfor  possession.  v Id. at*6*7.However,thecourtfurtherfoundthat theactionisoneon contractastotheguarantor  because[theguarantor]neverhadpossessionoftheproperty,neverclaimedpossession,andwas p neverentitledtopossession. Id. at*7.Thus,#LXXkv#XXLԀthetrialcourtheldthattheunlimitedjurisdictionof `  thegeneralsessionscourtinunlawfuldetaineractionsdidnotextendtotheclaimagainstthe P  guarantor.Therefore,theamountoftheawardagainsttheguarantorwasreducedtothe @  jurisdictionallimitatthattime, $10,000. Id. at*7. 0    #LXX{#XXLInthiscase,althoughtheactionwasinstitutedagainsttheguarantorsbyvirtueofadetainer `  warrant,nevertheless,theactionagainsttheguarantorswasoneforbreachofcontract.#LXXÝ}#XXL= 1#  3      ׀Underthese P  circumstances,thefactthattheautomaticbankruptcystaywithrespecttothetenantpreventedCrews @  fromobtainingpossessiondoesnotmeanunderTennesseeCodeAnnotated2918125thatCrews 0  claimagainsttheguarantorsmustbedismissed.Therefore,wemustconcludethatthetrialcourt   erredindismissingCrewsclaimsingeneralsessionscourtagainstthedefendantguarantors.#LXXë~#XXL  #LXX+#XXL  Crewsnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthathecouldnotenforcetheguaranty  agreementbecauseDexterSouthhadneverincorporated,registeredasapartnership,orobtaineda  businesslicenseand,further,thatCrewshadneverbeenassignedtherightsundertheguaranty  agreement.However,a#LXXÂ#XXL>XKXXXԀpersonmayuseatradename,ratherthantheirownname,toconduct p businessandexecutevalidcontracts. SeeBurksv._Belz_ԄWilsonProps. ,958S.W.2d773,776(Tenn. p Ct.App.1997); seealso 65_C.J.S._ԀNames14(statingthataperson mayadoptorassumeany \ name,whollyorpartlydifferentfromhisorhername,bywhichsuchpersonmay...executevalid H andbindingcontracts).#XXX>XKb##LXXC#XXLThus,#LXX#XXLCrewscouldvalidlyexecutecontractsinthenameofhissole 4 proprietorship,DexterSouth#LXXJ#  XXL.2 1#  4      ׀BecauseCrewsremainedtherealpartytotheguarantyagreement, 4 theabsenceofanassignmentofrightstoCrewsdoesnotpreventhimfromenforcingtheagreement. $t Therefore,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredindismissingCrewsclaimsonthisbasisaswell. d OurconclusionsastoCrewsclaimsarisingfromgeneralsessionscourtmakeitunnecessaryto  addresstheissuesonappealregardingthechancerycourtaction;thoseissuesarepretermitted.#LXX#XXL  #LXXÿ#  XXL  W#LXX#XXLemustnextaddresstheissueofdamages.ThetrialcourtfoundthatCrews neverproved  anyrealdamagesinthat[Slattery]testifiedthat[Crews]receivedmoremoneyfromtheTrusteein p Bankruptcythantheamountofitsclaimforrent,andexhibitednoawardofattorneyfeesfromthat `  Courtoranyother.Indeed,itwasstipulatedattrialthatCrewsreceived$29,759.32fromthe P  bankruptcyproceedings.However,Slatterystestimonyattrialindicatedthat#LXXq#XXLthetotalsumdue @  undertheleasewas$57,552.30,whichincludedunpaidrent,latefees,attorneysfees,andpre 0  judgmentinterest.Thistestimonywasessentiallyundisputedandwassupportedbyotherevidence  p  intherecord,includinganaffidavitsubmittedbyCrewsattorneyindicatinghishourlyrateandthe `  numberofhourshespentincollectionefforts.Underthesecircumstances,wemustconcludethat P  theevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatCrewsfailedtoprovedamages @  beyondtheamountreceivedinthebankruptcyproceedings. 0    Crewsassertsthattheclauseintheguarantyagreementstatingthattheguarantors severally  guaranteedthetenantspaymentpermitshimtorecovermorethantheamountdueunderthelease.  #LXXی#XXLCrewsarguesthatheshouldrecoverfromeachdefendantguarantorthetotalsumofdamages  ($57,552.30)lesstheamountreceivedinbankruptcy($29,759.32)multipliedbyeachdefendants  proportionateshareofownershipinthecompany.Thiswouldamounttoatotalawardagainstthe  defendantguarantorsof#LXX#XXLԀ$16,550.72.However,ifthisawardwereaddedtotheamountreceivedin p bankruptcyandtheamountsreceivedfromthesettlingguarantors,Crewswouldrecover$61,592.04, ` or$4,039.74morethantheamountactuallydueunderthelease.< 1#  5      ׀Crewsisnotentitledtoawindfall P simplybecausesomeguarantors,whosettledpriortoCrewsreceiptofmoniesfromthebankruptcy @ proceedings,mayhavepaidmorethantheirproportionateshare.Therefore,Crewsmayrecoverno 0 morethan$57,552.30minustheamountreceivedinbankruptcy($29,759.32),and#LXXà#XXLminustheamount  p receivedfromthesettlingguarantors($15,282.00),foratotalawardof$12,510.98.Theindividual ` defendantguarantorsareseverallyliablefortheirshareofthistotalaward,baseduponeach P individualsproportionateshareoftheremaining59.55%#LXX#XXLԀinterestheldbythenonsettling @ guarantors. 0   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecauseisremandedforfurtherproceedings ! consistentwiththisOpinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedequallyamongtheappelleesMichael "  L.Cahhal,BobbieS.Cahhal,NancyNichols,R.BretTaylor,KennethHill,andEvelynLorraine #! Hendrix,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary. $" #LXXN#XXL    `     h     ___________________________________ `'"%    `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE