WPC 8wǴ4|ǥ48uj@ ^{I"`yjAt.̜>P UL=A})}= У!p!1&Vޭ o-ѬuBP9OsVH.@QH">tԄ H]m :\C0dp $~yd Ե/Mp1!l \=J̷u ,B7.\~xd\rygpUr[2G-1XJ:%+Sr up"_Enrfc cN.жí[Yqv\)T"bسcTfr_$j (oщz;r{ѵroO[Օhğ&q ɼ =1-w~G }\ybYA/V-M2$ X,?7*b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #   g -NEb 0 B 0 D3q D- 0K ASo 05 0D Atu/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2z$ !.8[%dd8         0   d(|3u$ !.8[%dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3u$ !.8[%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8[%dd8     _  [%8 XXdd8  @ Dl[%INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#[%Dl #Ԉ &   April3,2003Session L X X[% #[%XX #CARLEVANS,etal.v.CLARENCEDOUGLAS,etal.X X[%  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.000134HowellN.Peoples,Chancellor  6 FILEDNOVEMBER21,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200202191COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThisisasuitbyCarlEvansandhiswifeSharonEvansagainstClarenceDouglas,HeritageRealty, x  CareFreeHomeCenter,Inc.,andRick_McManus_.Thesuitsoughtdamagesbecausealotthey d supposedtheywerebuyingfromMr.Douglaswasnotthelottheyowned,butoneadjacentthereto. P HeritageRealtywassuedastheemployerofMr.DouglasandCareFreeHomeCenter,Inc.,asthe < sellerofamodularhomewhichwasplacedonthewronglot,andputtingthe_Evanses_Ԁintouchwith (x Mr.Douglas.Rick_McManus_Ԁwastheownerofthelotuponwhichthemodularhomewasplaced#[%XX r#X X[%, d althoughnoreliefwassoughtagainsthim.Mr._McManus_,however,didfileacountercomplaint P seekingrentsfromthe_Evanses_Ԁfortheiruseofhislot.TheTrialCourtawardedajudgmenttothe < _Evanses_ԀagainstMr.Douglasonly,undertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,andajudgment ( infavorofMr._McManus_Ԁagainstthe_Evanses_Ԁforrentalvalueoftheproperty,aswellas  discretionarycosts.Weaffirmasmodified.  #[%XX #X X[%@ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedas   @BB Modified;CauseRemanded   #[%XX #X X.[%HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand r  D.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. ^!  MichaelA.Wagner,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,ClarenceDouglas 6#" FredS._Clelland_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,CarlEvansandSharonEvans %^ $ JohnC._Cavett_,Jr.,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,Rick_McManus_ &6"&  @66'OPINION #[%XX #X X[%Ԉ )$) #[%XX #X X[%  CounselfortheAppellantcorrectlystatesthecaseinhisbrief: n,',  Z-(- _ Thisisacaseinvolvingthesaleofapieceofrealestatecontainingonelot  uponwhichthepurchasersplacedamodularhome.Thepurchasersplacedthe  modularhomeonthewronglot.Thelotwhichwasdeededtothepurchaserswas  differentthanthelotuponwhichtheirmodularhomewasplaced.Thenatureof t thecasewasanactiontorecoverdamagesasaresultofamisrepresentationonthe ` partofthesellertothebuyerandforpunitivedamagesundertheTennessee L  ConsumerProtectionAct.ThecasewastriedtotheChanceryCourtofHamilton 8  County,Tennessee,withoutajury,andtheTrialCourtenteredaFinalOrderon $ t May9,2002findingthattheConsumerProtectionActappliedtothecaseand  ` awardingdamagesof$11,100.00,andthentriplethatdamageundertheTennessee  L  ConsumerProtectionActagainstClarenceDouglas,andawardedfairmarket  8  rentalagainstthepurchaserinfavoroftheownerofthetractoflanduponwhich $  themodularhomewaswrongfullyplacedintheamountof$14,714.00,plus   $300.00indiscretionarycosts.     Mr.Douglasappeals,makingthefollowingthreecontentions:    1.TheTrialCourterredinfindingthattherewasa deceptiveactunder \ theTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct. H  2.TheCourterredinfindinga knowingorwilfuldeceptiveactunder  p theTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.  \  3.TheCourterredinfindingthattherewasproofofactualdamagein 4 thecase.     Asthisisanonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordwithapresumptionof  correctnessastothetrialcourtsfindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.  Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.;Hackettv.SmithCounty,807S.W.2d695,699(Tenn.App.1990);Smithv.  Jarnagin,436S.W.2d310.313(Tenn.App.1968).Conclusionsoflawcometousfreeofanysuch l presumption.Adamsv.DeanRoofingCo.,715S.W.2d341,343(Tenn.App.1986). X    Thetestimonyispresentedbyastatementoftheevidenceratherthanaverbatimtranscript. 0"  ItshowsthatMr.DouglasadvisedtheEvansestogetasurveyofthepropertyonseveraloccasions. #l! Mrs.Evanstestimonyacknowledgesthathedidsoonatleastoneoccasion.Mr.Douglasalso $X" attemptedtopurchasethelotonwhichthemodularhomewassituated,buttheownerrejectedhis $D # importunes. %0!$   AlthoughtheTrialCourtfoundMr.Douglassactswerewillfulanddeceptiveasdefinedin '#& theTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,webelievethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstsuch (#' afinding.Wesaythisbecause,asalreadynoted,Mr.DouglasadvisedtheEvansestoobtainasurvey )$( andingoodfaithattemptedtoremedytheproblembypurchasingthelotuponwhichthemodular |*%) homewasplacedandconveyittothemandpayasumtoMr.__McManus_. h+&* Ї  Inlightofthis,wedeemitappropriatetoreducethetrebledamagesawardedandmakean  awardof$11,000.    Astothethirdissue,thestatementoftheevidencereadsasfollows: t Mrs.Evanstestifiedthattheyspent$____________tohaveawelldugonLot11. L  Theyspent$___________tohavethemodularhomeplacedonLot11. 8    Inlightofthefactthattheblankswerenotcompletedastotheproofregardingdamages,we  ` cannotfindtheTrialCourttobeinerror.  L    FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourt,asmodified,isaffirmedandthe $  causeremandedforcollectionofthejudgmentandcostsbelow.Costsofappealareadjudged   againstCarlEvansandwifeSharonEvans.      `     h   _________________________________________ \    `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE H