ÿWPCŠ ¿_ïLþÅÛWËûÔÞ~0ŒV“uÇÈÛÑ­ Ïe–ŒÉžŠi5Z½ŒBe\­¬ƒ©v?nð©À!«.%›Ô7¿… S dY2? ò_\V¾\ú9Zo瀠˜‡’ *"Xˆ¨VªHmûsÅ®¦{Î^yKA‡/Õ„ .ɘ#9O©OuÏ“6¥m&ÝT§ëÄ[ù$@X/F„ãRGÚÑ”1(CåGÜòÇG¡´ jÀm*n ¼¼©÷[Õ%Äwƒç™Ú]¤m˯M6;Rø*K<9"Ó ÇÛ`2*âÑ‚.VúÙVææ ©—z¸Ý5³ŸIDþ1Ìê†c†ÄGQR7Õ©óþ9ýØèx$oß®e_È`>˜n£îà ŒqÚêÊI‘ ,,oÅøÕ²K¬J¤¿1uŽÅâåÿ›î)™Ijçh —ºÍM’þ½q-g»R5ž ±ƒ£û\9fª,ÂÏàlôœË§ÇÅ(ZêC!g*Q8o쨵FOŸF]\²ãÃ8X‚D6¯1†µ“»s÷ôñ²¨¢É€ )JÀî:¸VФÊ´i-ïG±Òu‚xsK ¦¾†Æ‡”0¨4XÌü«n\…=.$„Ý7:^*qpŒ¯˜HnFø(`b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0D0Ntv 0c~Eá 1‡ãUNj ¸ 1uØ 72MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMb 0뇇‡‡ Brr 0¤ D33 D-f 0K““ ASÞÆ1 0¤÷ 0D› A«ß˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»4‹ý,â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒR›0$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€defined€ð ðprevailing€partyðð€as€ð ðone€who€has€succeededÐ ° Ðon€any€significant€claim€affording€it€some€of€the€relief€sought.ðð€€òòTexas€State€Teachers€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô.€v.Ð œì ÐGarland€Ô_ÔIndepÔ_Ô.€School€Dist.óó,€489€U.S.€782,€791,€109€S.€Ct.€1486,€1493,€103€L.€Ed.€2d€866€(1989).3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- ù-(|G2›0$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»Ô d(|3‡–$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡–$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_õ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼_õ»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@¹¹ìàJune€25,€2002€€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XX»¼_õÔÌò òÔ#†¼_õ»XX #ÔÓ  ÓDAIRY€GOLD,€INC.,€v.€MICHAEL€THOMASòòóóÔ‡XX»¼_õÔó óÐ Ò" ÐÓæÓÌà@¡ ¡ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@  ìàNo.€00„689€€€€€€Hon.€W.€Frank€Brown,€III,€ChancellorˆÐ ¾  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€JULY€29,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2001„02463„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óÌÌÌIn€this€dispute€over€a€commercial€lease,€the€Chancellor€entered€Judgment€for€lessor€for€limited€rents,Ð (x Ðtaxes€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€On€appeal,€we€affirm.Ð d ÐÔ#†¼_õ»XX#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_õÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼_õ»àX„#ÔÔ‡XX.¼_õÔ,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Houston€M.€Goddard,Ô#†¼_õ»àXK#ÔÔ‡XX.¼_õÔÐ Ä ÐP.J.,óóÔ#†¼_õ»XXÙ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_õÔ€joined,€andòò€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,Ô#†¼_õ»àX8#ÔÔ‡XX.¼_õÔ€J.óó,Ô#†¼_õ»XX¡#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_õÔ€did€not€participate.Ð ° ÐÌJames€R.€Ô_ÔMcKoonÔ_Ô,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant.Ð ˆØ ÐÌJames€T.€Williams,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð `° ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼_õ»XXê#ÔÔ‡XX»¼_õԈР!`  ÐÌòòà  àóóÔ#†¼_õ»XX3 #ÔÔ‡XX»¼_õÔÔ‡XXXXÔÌà  àà ` àThis€dispute€arises€over€a€commercial€lease€between€Dairy€Gold,€Inc.€(lessor)€andÐ Ô#$# ÐMichael€Thomas€(lessee).€€Lessor€leased€the€property€to€Lessee€for€a€ten€year€term€on€August€2,Ð À$ $ Ð1990,€which€€would€expire€on€September€30,€2000.€€The€lease€recites€that€the€property€was€to€be€usedÐ ¬%ü % Ðonly€as€a€car€wash.€Ð ˜&è!& ЀÌà  àà ` àThis€lease€has€been€the€subject€of€a€previous€appeal,€òòDairy€Gold€v.€Thomasóó,€1999€WLÐ p(À#( Ð1068701€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€29,€1999).€€In€our€prior€opinion€we€found€that€the€lessee€tookÐ \)¬$) Ðpossession€of€the€property€in€October€1990,€but€never€occupied€the€building.€€òòóóHe€learned€in€1991€thatÐ H*˜%* Ðthe€building€could€not€be€utilized€for€the€type€of€car€wash€operation€that€he€had€planned,€andòòóó€in€1992,Ð 4+„&+ Ðthe€City€sent€a€warning€regarding€the€condition€of€the€property,€and€lessor€gave€lessee€permissionÐ  ,p', Ðto€demolish€the€building.€òòóó€Lessee€began€demolition€by€June€1,€1992,€but€later€complained€that€aÐ  -\(-ý Ðbillboard€on€the€premises€would€prevent€him€from€being€able€to€build€a€new€car€wash.€€òòóóIn€1994,Ð ° ÐDairy€Gold€received€a€citation€from€the€City€that€the€leased€property€was€unfit€or€dangerous,€andÐ œì ÐDairy€Gold€was€told€to€either€bring€the€building€up€to€code,€or€demolish€it€within€a€certain€timeÐ ˆØ Ðframe.€€òòóóLessee€then€demolished€the€building€in€June€1994,€with€the€lessorððs€permission.€€òòÐ tÄ ÐóóÌà  àà ` àIn€June€of€1995,€lessee€notified€lessor€that€he€was€going€to€withhold€rent€until€theÐ L œ Ðproperty€was€put€back€in€ð ðÔ_ÔtenantableÔ_Ôðð€condition.€€òòóóLessee€also€took€the€position€that€he€should€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðrefunded€all€rents€paid€to€that€time,€as€well€as€being€reimbursed€for€the€cost€of€demolition.€€òòóóTheÐ $ t Ðlessor€filed€suit€in€1996€seeking€rent,€unpaid€property€taxes,€late€fees,€etc.€€òòóóIn€that€suit,€the€Trial€CourtÐ  ` Ðfound€that€lessee€had€ð ðsimply€made€a€bad€business€dealðð€and€that€he€failed€to€prove€that€he€wasÐ ü L  Ðentitled€to€rescission.€òòóó€The€Trial€Court€awarded€damages€to€lessor€for€rent,€taxes,€and€late€chargesÐ è 8  Ðup€to€the€time€of€trial€in€September€1998.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€action€was€affirmed€by€this€Court.€€òòId.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àóóLessor€brought€this€action€on€June€22,€2000,€claiming€the€lessee€was€still€not€payingÐ ¬ü  Ðany€rent,€and€sought€rent€due€from€October€1998€to€the€end€of€the€lease€in€September€2000.€€LessorÐ ˜è  Ðalso€sought€property€taxes,€late€charges,€and€attorney€fees.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àLessee€Answered€and€filed€a€Counter„Complaint,€alleging€that€lessor€had€breachedÐ \¬ Ðthe€lease,€and€lessee€was€excused€from€paying€rent.€Lessee€averred€that€the€property€was€impairedÐ H˜ Ðby€contamination€from€underground€storage€tanks,€and€that€contaminated€soil€had€been€stored€on€theÐ 4„ Ðproperty,€rendering€the€property€ð ðÔ_ÔuntenantableÔ_Ôðð.€€Lessor€answered€the€Counter„Complaint,€admittingÐ  p Ðthat€they€had€removed€the€underground€storage€tanks€and€had€done€Ô_ÔremediationÔ_Ô€on€the€site,€butÐ  \ Ðdenied€that€lessee€was€prevented€from€use€of€the€property.€After€the€trial€in€this€case,€the€Trial€CourtÐ øH Ðissued€a€Memorandum€Opinion€and€made€extensive€findings€of€fact.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€found€that€after€the€original€Judgment€against€lessee€in€the€first€case,Ð ¼  ÐLessee€went€to€the€property€and€looked€for€environmental€problems.€€Lessee€called€the€TennesseeÐ ¨ø ÐDepartment€of€Environment€and€Conservation€(Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ô)€and€that€the€Department€inspected€the€siteÐ ”ä Ðon€September€30,€1998,€and€€informed€lessor€by€letter€on€December€2,€1998,€that€it€would€have€toÐ €Ð Ðdo€something€about€the€underground€storage€tanks.€€The€Court€further€found€this€was€the€first€timeÐ l¼ Ðlessor€knew€it€would€have€to€take€action€regarding€the€tanks.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€found€that€lessor€commenced€removing€the€tanks€on€February€23,€1999,Ð 0"€  Ðand€the€surrounding€soil€was€contaminated,€and€permission€was€€received€to€remove€the€soil€andÐ #l! Ðincinerate€it.€€However,€lessor€decided€to€decontaminate€the€soil€on€site€by€aeration,€which€requiredÐ $X" Ðmoving€the€dirt€pile€from€the€rear€of€the€property€to€the€front,€and€turning€the€dirt€monthly€until€theÐ ô$D # Ðcontaminant€had€evaporated.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€court€found€that€Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ô€cited€lessor€on€May€7,€2001€for€failing€to€carry€out€theÐ ¸'#& Ðaeration€properly,€and€that€the€dirt€pile€had€never€been€properly€processed.€€The€court€found€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlessee€never€informed€lessor€that€lessee€wanted€to€use€the€property€during€the€two€year€period,€andÐ )à$( Ðthus€never€asked€lessor€to€remove€the€contaminated€dirt,€which€the€Court€found€was€contrary€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðlesseeððs€claim€for€lost€profits.€€Likewise,€the€court€found€that€lessor€never€informed€lessee€that€it€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðgoing€to€remove€the€storage€tanks,€and€never€told€lessee€that€it€would€remove€the€dirt.Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€held€that€lessor€did€not€breached€the€lease€by€going€on€the€property,€andÐ ˆØ Ðdoing€what€Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ô€required.€€Further,€the€Court€found€that€Lessee€€never€obtained€a€building€permit,Ð tÄ Ðand€never€explained€why€the€environmental€hazard€was€not€of€earlier€concern.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€ruled€that€it€would€be€inequitable€to€allow€lessor€to€recover,€when€lesseeÐ 8 ˆ Ðcould€not€use€the€premises,€and€that€lessee€could€not€recover€because€he€failed€to€prove€any€lostÐ $ t Ðprofits.€€The€Court€found€that€lessor€had€substantially€interfered€with€lesseeððs€rights€to€the€leasehold,Ð  ` Ðand€that€lessor€constructively€evicted€lessee€as€of€December€2,€1998,€when€it€had€notice€that€it€wouldÐ ü L  Ðhave€to€remedy€the€underground€storage€tank€situation.€€The€Court€stated€that€it€was€not€convincedÐ è 8  Ðthat€lessee€ever€had€a€good€faith€intent€to€place€a€car€wash€on€the€property,€and€awarded€judgmentÐ Ô$  Ðagainst€the€lessee€for€the€rent€from€October€1,€1998€to€December€2,€1998,€plus€a€5%€late€charge.€€TheÐ À  ÐCourt€also€found€that€the€1998€taxes€were€not€recovered€in€the€prior€judgment,€and€that€lessor€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðentitled€to€$1,521.24€of€the€$1,657.60€taxes€due€for€1998.€€The€court€based€its€ruling€on€the€fact€thatÐ ˜è  Ðuntil€Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ô€notified€lessor€of€their€requirements€to€remove€the€underground€storage€tanks,€lessee€wasÐ „Ô  Ðin€no€different€position€than€he€had€been€before.€€Ð pÀ Ѐ€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àThe€court€also€held€that€the€lease€provided€for€attorney€fees€to€be€paid€to€theÐ H˜ Ðprevailing€party,€and€awarded€lessor€one„third€of€the€amount€of€the€judgment,€or€$1,536.76.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIssues€of€law€come€to€this€Court€without€any€presumption€of€correctness,€and€ourÐ  \ Ðreview€is€òòde€novoóó.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ øH Ðfindings€of€fact€in€this€case,€which€come€to€this€Court€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€R.Ð ä4 ÐApp.€P.€13(d).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àLessee€argues€that€he€was€constructively€evicted€as€of€September€30,€1998,€whenÐ ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔTDECÔ_Ô€inspected€the€property,€but€the€proof€is€undisputed€that€lessor€did€not€receive€notice€of€having€Ð ”ä Ðto€take€any€action€with€regard€to€the€tanks€prior€to€December€2,€1998.€€As€the€Trial€Court€explained,Ð €Ð Ðconstructive€eviction€occurs€when€a€landlord€permanently€and€substantially€interferes€with€theÐ l¼ Ðtenantððs€beneficial€enjoyment€of€the€premises.€€òòTenn-Tex€Properties€v.€Ô_ÔBrownellÔ_Ô-Electro,€Incòòóóóó.,€778Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1989).€€Further,€the€issue€of€what€constitutes€a€substantial€and€permanentÐ D!” Ðinterference€is€a€question€of€fact.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àBoth€knew€that€the€tanks€were€on€the€premises€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€lease,€andÐ $X" Ðknew€that€there€would€be€possible€ramifications€from€the€same.€€òòSee€òòóóDairy€Gold€v.€Thomasóó.€TheÐ ô$D # Ðpartiesðð€positions€did€not€change€until€Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ô€notified€lessor€that€it€was€going€to€have€to€immediatelyÐ à%0!$ Ðremove€the€tanks.€€We€conclude€the€Trial€Court€was€correct€in€holding€that€a€constructive€evictionÐ Ì&"% Ðtook€place€as€of€December€2,€Ô_Ô1998.Ô_ÔÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àLessee€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€adjudging€him€liable€for€rent€throughÐ )à$( ÐDecember€2,€1998,€based€on€the€above€argument€regarding€the€date€of€the€constructive€eviction.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐLessor€argues€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€not€awarding€rent€for€the€entire€term€of€the€lease.€€We€believe,Ð h+¸&* Ðunder€all€the€circumstances,€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€was€proper€as€to€the€time€of€the€constructiveÐ ° Ðeviction.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àLessee€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€awarding€lessor€property€taxes€for€1998,Ð tÄ Ðbecause€taxes€were€a€part€of€the€prior€judgment.€€The€Trial€Court€held€that€taxes€awarded€were€notÐ `° Ðcollected€in€the€prior€judgment,€because€they€had€not€been€billed€at€the€time€of€that€trial.€€A€reviewÐ L œ Ðof€the€damages€calculation€from€the€prior€trial€reveals€that€the€Trial€Judge€is€correct.€€The€recordÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontains€a€detailed€listing€of€the€rent€charges,€taxes,€etc.,€which€were€sought€by€and€awarded€toÐ $ t Ðlessor,€and€shows€that€only€the€1995„1997€taxes€were€included.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÐ  ` Ðmerit.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àLessee€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€award€him€lost€profits.€€The€lawÐ Ô$  Ðis€well„settled€that€lost€profits€can€only€be€recovered€when€they€are€proven€with€reasonable€certainty,Ð À  Ðand€must€not€be€remote€or€speculative.€€òòTire€Shredders,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔERMÔ_Ô„North€Central,€Inc.,óó€15€S.W.3dÐ ¬ü  Ð849€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Lessor€must€show€that€the€loss€was€a€direct€consequence€of€lessorððsÐ ˜è  Ðbreach.€€òòÔ_ÔLamonsÔ_Ô€v.€Chamberlainóó,€909€S.W.2d€795€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1993).€€€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€lessee€never€had€a€good€faith€intent€to€construct€a€car€washÐ \¬ Ðon€the€leased€premises,€and€found€that€lessee€failed€to€prove€that€he€was€entitled€to€lost€profits,€failedÐ H˜ Ðto€show€what€it€would€have€cost€to€construct€the€proposed€car€wash€on€the€property,€and€never€Ð 4„ Ðsought€a€building€permit.€€€The€Trial€Court€refused€to€hear€evidence€regarding€lost€profits€becauseÐ  p Ðthe€proof€was€too€speculative.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Courtððs€findings.€Ð  \ ЀÌà  àà ` àNext€lessee€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€award€him€attorneyððs€feesÐ ä4 Ðand€in€awarding€attorneyððs€fees€to€lessor.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€to€lessor€wasÐ Ð  Ðbased€upon€a€provision€in€the€lease€which€states€that€if€a€lawsuit€is€brought€regarding€an€act€of€eitherÐ ¼  Ðparty€to€the€lease€or€to€recover€money€due€thereunder,€then€the€prevailing€party€would€be€entitled€toÐ ¨ø Ðreasonable€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€lessor€was€the€prevailing€party€ð ðbarelyðð€andÐ ”ä Ðawarded€it€a€fee€of€one„third€of€the€damage€amount€awarded.€€Lessee€argues€that€lessor€was€onlyÐ €Ð Ðsuccessful€in€recovering€two€monthsðð€rent€out€of€the€24€month€period€it€sought,€and€since€lessee€wasÐ l¼ Ðconstructively€evicted,€he€should€have€been€declared€the€prevailing€party.€€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àDetermination€of€who€is€the€ð ðprevailing€partyðð€under€the€lease€requires€us€ð ðto€applyÐ 0"€  Ðthe€legal€principles€relative€to€the€interpretation€and€construction€of€contracts.€€The€cardinal€rule€isÐ #l! Ðthat€the€intent€of€the€parties€must€be€ascertained€and€given€effect.€€òòInternational€Flight€Center€v.€CityÐ $X" Ðof€Murfreesboroóó,€45€S.W.3d€565,€570€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€term€ð ðprevailing€partyðð€has€commonly€been€defined€as€ð ðthe€party€to€a€suit€whoÐ Ì&"% Ðsuccessfully€prosecutes€the€action€or€successfully€defends€against€it,€prevailing€on€the€main€issue,Ð ¸'#& Ðeven€though€not€necessarily€to€the€extent€of€his€original€contention.€€The€one€in€whose€favor€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âdecision€or€verdict€is€rendered€and€judgment€entered.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€1188€(6òòthóóÐ )à$( ÐEd.1990).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Lessor€sought€and€received€a€judgment€for€rent,€though€not€to€the€extent€claimed,€butÐ ° Ðâ âlessee€was€not€awarded€judgment€for€any€damages.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€Trial€Court€thatÐ œì Ðlessor€was€the€prevailing€party€under€the€terms€of€the€lease.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€lessor€contends€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€was€notÐ `° Ðreasonable,€we€will€not€disturb€the€Trial€Courtððs€decision€regarding€the€reasonableness€of€attorneyððsÐ L œ Ðfees,€absent€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€€òòAlbright€v.€Merceróó,€945€S.W.2d€749€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1996).€€The€Trial€Court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€on€this€issue.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude€the€remaining€issues€are€without€merit€and€affirm€the€Judgment€of€theÐ ü L  ÐTrial€Court€and€remand,€with€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€Michael€Thomas.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌÌà  àÔ#†XXXX½ #ÔÔ#†¼_õ»XXž #ÔÔ‡XX»¼_õÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð pÀ Ðóó