WPC# d_ԭ }BPi'3pHy6k  vZ]._C~yt>!J_B Go[FZjK٧ I((KU~: P{:x>őUH{,:1aΌXgAyL K`>~G?;mP~"齝kȎ]5##^6K-!:@ugQ!((JU_v$ә^:N*w2һ$l]-:.rmNTTK:v5y#n%AuV1G=2{_"P׸&<=0&Kd$++܉Pq2 Y5Wƨ`3X"_5w1mcQi4{!\My5pƉHKoD0ZSTvb#\ % ^ # 0/ U%N w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1N/ 0 DEXZ 0 c &nfU>J$ 1un 72 1 1 1##+b 0  B 0 D3 D- 0K AS.!! 0G" 0D" A/#HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0t+L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(~1EL`  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 R<$      1  ,  _ԀFaulknersBodyShop,Inc.wasalsodoingbusinessunderthenameGaryFaulknerBodyShop,Inc. % R<$      2  ,  _GaryP.Faulkner,thepresidentofFaulknerBodyShop,Inc.,individuallyguaranteedtheobligationsunder  theleaseandallsubsequentagreements.(#$  0   R<$      3  ,  _TheleasewasdraftedbyMr.Farnsworth.(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R<$      4  ,  _TheassigneeswereJimRichardson,JoeRichardsonandDonVestal.Thesepartiesarenotinvolvedinthe  casecurrentlybeforethiscourt. R<$      5  ,  _Mr.FarnsworthbroughtsuitagainstMr.FaulknerindividuallyasguarantorofShopsobligations. \ R<$      6  ,  _Thetrialcourt,initsJuly21,2000orderreferencesanExhibitA,whichcontains adetailedlistofeachcost  andtheinterestonsuch.However,nosuchExhibitAwasincludedintherecord.\  `&Times New Roman @ R<$      7  ,  _ShopclaimsthatseveraltermsintheAgreementarerepugnant.ThespecifictermsrequirethatShoppayfor  repairstotheroofbeforetheassignmentofthepropertytothethirdpartyaswellasproviding$4,568tocompensate x Mr.Farnsworthforrepairstotheroofthatwillberequiredinthefutureduetotheremovalofcertainequipment.We @ donotfindthesetermstoberepugnant.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(hCEKQW]cioAutoList6I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList7I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList8I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. w R<$      8  ,  _WenotethattheAgreementinvolvedthreeparties,Mr.Farnsworth,Shopandthethirdpartyassignee.Our  findingsinthismatterarenotintendedtodeterminewhichtermsofthepreviousleaseapplytothethirdpartyassignee. R<$      9  ,  _ԀTheAgreementdoesnotcontainanytermsallowingfortherecoveryofattorneysfees R<$      10  ,  _Thislimitationisalsolistedundertherepairsectionofthelease. R<$      11  ,  _AswelackExhibitAofthetrialcourtorder,wecannotgiveaspecificdollaramountfortheserepairs.- -(|G2<$ !.8dd8         0  , d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   May1,2001Session X XX #XX#THOMASC.FARNSWORTH,JR.v.GARYP.FAULKNER,etal.XX   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.1094283D.J._Alissandratos_,Chancellor  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200002031_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust2,2001 '  AV) ` dE<` A       X-cXXXThisappealarisesfromthetrialcourtsgrantingofamotionofsummaryjudgment.Thecourtruled  thatShophadviolatedanAgreementwhichincorporatedinitsentiretyapreviousleaseofcertain  property.Asaresult,OwnerwasawardedtherepaircostsforcertainrepairsthatShophadbeen  responsibleforunderthelease.Ownerwasalsoawardedattorneysfeesandexpenses.Shop z appealed,arguingthatcertainmaterialfactswereindisputeandthussummaryjudgmentwas f inappropriate.Weaffirminpartandreverseinpart. R Ѐ >  #XXX X-c##XXu#XXTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinpart; *z Reversedinpart;andRemanded  j   #X#XX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S. J andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. : StuartB.Breakstone,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,GaryP.Faulkner,individuallyand  doingbusinessasFaulknersBodyShp,Inc.,a/kaGaryFaulknerBodyShop,Inc.   E.NicoleTrail,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,ThomasC.Farnsworth,Jr. !   OPINION #XX#XX z#" #XXJ #XX X-cXXX     InSeptember,1986,FaulknersBodyShop,Inc.(Shop), #  1      ׀signedaleasewithThomasC. Z% $  Farnsworth,Jr.torentpropertyat5161_Wilfong_ԀRoad,Memphis,Tennesseeinordertooperate F&!% itsbusiness. #  2      ׀Theleasecoveredatermof120months.  #  3      ׀In1996,Shoprequestedpermissionto   assigntheLeasetoathirdparty. #  4      ׀Asettlementagreement(Agreement)wasexecutedinJuly,  1996betweenMr.Farnsworth,Shopandthethirdpartyprovidingforthisassignment.The  AgreementprovidedthatShop repair[]andrestore[]theLeasedPremisesasrequiredbythe t LeaseandasdescribedbelowinthisAgreement.TheAgreementcontainedspecificterms ` dealingwithrepairoftheroofofthepremise. L    Adisputearosebetweenthepartiesconcerningseveralsetsofrepairsandwhowas $ t responsiblefortheircost.ShoparguedthatithadmetitsresponsibilityundertheAgreement,  ` statingthattheAgreementonlyincorporatedcertainpartsofthepriorlease.Mr.Farnsworth  L  arguedthatthepriorleasewasincorporatedinitsentirety.Thepartiesalsodisputedwhether  8  severalspecificrepairswererequiredundereitherdocument.Mr.Farnsworthundertookthese $  repairsandfiledsuitseekingdamagesagainstShopandMr.Faulkner,claimingthatShophad   breachedtheAgreement. #  5           Afterseveraldepositionsweretakenbytheparties,Mr.Farnsworthfiledamotionfor   summaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtgrantedthismotion,findingthatShopwasguiltyofabreach p oftheAgreement.Asaresult,thecourtawardeddamagestotaling$40,717.21andattorneys \ feesandexpensesintheamountof$25,000. #  6      ׀Shopappealed,claimingthatgenuineandmaterial H issuesoffactremainedtobedecidedandthatsummaryjudgmentwasinappropriate. 4   Theissues,asweperceivethem,areasfollows:  \    `     h      p   8  I.0`   DidthetrialcourterrindeterminingthattheAgreementadoptedthelease 4 initsentirety?$` `   $(h83! !8  "3"  32h  II  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrthroughitsdeterminationthatShopwasresponsible  topayMr.Faulknersattorneysfees?3݌` `  Ќ  8       &(h88$! !"3"  8  32h  III  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrthroughitsdeterminationthatShopwasresponsible p topayforrepairstothepremise?3!݌\ ` `  Ќ   H!  ((h88&! !"3"  8  32h  IV  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterringrantingMr.Farnsworthsmotionforsummary  judgmentwhereShopdisputedtherepaircostsofcertaindamages? 3:݌` `  Ќ     ` 8   ` Whenreviewingagrantofsummaryjudgment,anappellatecourtmust t decideanewifjudgmentinsummaryfashionisappropriate. Cowdenv._Sovran_ ` Bank ,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991); Gonzalezv._Alman_ԀConstr.Co. ,857 L  S.W.2d42,4445(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Sincethisdeterminationinvolvesa 8  questionoflaw,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourt's $ t judgment. Robinsonv._Omer_ ,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997); _Hembree_Ԁv.  ` State ,925S.W.2d513,515(Tenn.1996).Inmakingourdetermination,wemust  L  viewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwe  8  mustdrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty. Byrdv.Hall ,847 $  S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993).Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifthere   arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthenonlyiftheundisputedmaterial   factsentitlethemovingpartytoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.   56.04; Byrd ,847S.W.2dat211.     _Phung_Ԁv.Case ,No.03A019811CV00388,1999WL544650,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.July28, \ 1999).  H   AdoptionoftheLeaseintheAgreement  p      Mr.Farnsworth,inhismotionforsummaryjudgment,arguedthathe enteredintoa H LeaseandasubsequentAgreementwith[Shop]andthat[Shop]breachedboththeLeaseand 4 Agreementcausing[him]toincursignificantdamagesaswellasattorneysfeesandcourtcosts.   Assuch,Mr.Farnswortharguedthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexistedandthathewas   entitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.ThetrialcourtagreedandawardedMr.Farnsworth  damages,attorneysfeesandexpenses.    ItisclearthattheAgreementbetweentheparties set[]forththeentireunderstandingof l theparties,replacinganyandallprioragreementsrelatingtothesubjectmatter.Shopargued X  thatthistermintendedtheAgreementtoreplaceallbutselectedportionsofthelease.However, D! Mr.Farnsworthargued,andthetrialcourtclearlyagreed,thatthesectionoftheAgreementthat 0"  statedthat [_a]ll_ԀrelevanttermsoftheLeaseareincorporatedintothisAgreementbyreference #l! incorporatedtheleasebetweenthepartiesinitsentiretyintotheAgreement.Thus,inorderto $X" properlyreviewthiscase,itisfirstnecessaryforthiscourttoexaminetheAgreementto $D # determineifthetrialcourtwascorrectinitsconstructionofthetermsoftheAgreement. %0!$   Therulesofcontractconstructionmustbeappliedtoresolveanyconflictbetween '#& contractingparties. See_Coble_Ԁ_Sys_.,Inc.v._Gifford_ԀCo. ,627S.W.2d359,363(Tenn.Ct.App. (#' 1982).  `  )$(   |*%)  8  Firstandmostimportantistheprimaryrulethattheintentofthepartiesmust   prevail. Ohio_Cas_.Co.,Inc.v.TravelersIndemnityCompany ,493S.W.2d465  (Tenn.1973).Second,thecourtswillconstruethewritingsoastoavoidthe  conflictifpossible. Bartlettv.PhillipsCaryMfg.Co. ,392S.W.2d325(Tenn. t 1965).Third,iftheprovisionsaresorepugnantthattheycannotstandtogether, ` thefirstshallbegiveneffectandthelatterrejected.17Am._Jur_.Contracts,267; L   Bartlettv.PhillipsCaryMfg.Co. ,supra; _Smithart_Ԁv.JohnHancockMut.Life 8  InsuranceCompany ,71S.W.2d1059(Tenn.1934).Fourth,writtenor $ t typewrittentermswillcontrolprintedpartsofanagreementwherethereisan  ` apparentinconsistency.17Am._Jur_.2dContracts,271; _Tindell_Ԁv.Bowers ,216  L  S.W.2d752(Tenn.1949).Fifth,doubtfullanguageinacontractshouldbe  8  interpretedmoststronglyagainstthepartywhodreworpreparedit.17Am. $  _Jur_.2dContracts,276; Fullerv._Orkin_ԀExterminatingCo.Inc .,545S.W.2d103   (Tenn.Ct.App.1975).Thislastruleistobeapplied,however,onlywhereother   rulesofconstructionfailtogivecertaintytothewrittenexpression.17Am.   _Jur_.2dContracts,276#XXX X-c #X-cXXX;#XXXX-c4# X-cXXX Crouchv.Shepard ,44Tenn.383(1867).     _Coble_Ԁ_Sys_.,Inc. ,627S.W.2dat363.    \    Inexaminingthecasebeforeus,wefindthatsectionelevenoftheAgreementclearly 4 intendedtoadopt allrelevanttermsoftheLeaseintotheagreement.Thepartiesdisagreeon  p whetheritwastheirintentionthatthistermtoadopttheleaseinitsentirety.Thus,itisnecessary  \ forustocontinueourexamination.Indoingso,wefindthattheAgreementhasnoconflicting H termsandthat,contrarytotheclaimsofShop,containsnorepugnantterms. #  7      ׀Asthiscasedoes 4 notinvolveanyconflictovertypedorhandwrittentermstakingprecedenceoverprinted   language,wearelefttoconsiderthefifthruleofconstruction.Thefifthrulestatesthat doubtful   languageinacontractshouldbeinterpretedmoststronglyagainstthepartywhodreworprepared  it. Id. Inthiscase,Mr.Farnsworth draftedtheagreement,thus,anydoubtfullanguageinthe  AgreementmustbeinterpretedinfavorofShop.    ThetrialcourtacceptedMr.Farnsworthsargumentthatthelanguage, allrelevantterms \  oftheLease,shouldbeinterpretedtomean alltermsoftheLease.Thecourtclearlyerredin H! thisdetermination. AllrelevanttermsoftheLeaseisclearly doubtfullanguagethatcouldbe 4"  interpretedasrepresentingthedesiretoadoptalltermsofthepreviousleaseoronlysomeofthe  #p!  termsofthepreviouslease.  AsMr.FarnsworthdraftedtheAgreement,thiscourtmustinterpret  $\" theAgreementinShopsfavorandthusfindthattheformerleasewasnotadoptedinitsentirety  intheAgreement.* #  8      ׀     AttorneysFees t    8   ` ItisageneralruleinthisStatethatlitigantsmustpaytheirownattorney L  fees. HowardG.LewisConst.Co.,Inc.v.Lee ,830S.W.2d60,64(Tenn.Ct. 8  App.1991).Intheabsenceofastatutoryprovisionoracontractualagreement $ t betweentheparties,attorneyfees,incurredbyalitigant,arenotaproperelement  ` ofdamages. JohnJ._Heirigs_ԀConst.Co.,Inc.v._Exide_ ,709S.W.2d604,609  L  (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); Goingsv.Aetna_Cas_.&Sur.Co. ,491S.W.2d847,848  8  (_Tenn.Ct_.App.1972).Suchanawardiscontrarytothepublicpolicyof (  Tennessee. HowardG.LewisConst.Co.,Inc. ,830S.W.2dat64.     Morrowv._Bobbitt_ ,943S.W.2d384,392(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).     ThetrialcourtawardedattorneysfeestoMr.Farnsworthunderasectionincludedinthe ` originallease.+  #  9      ׀Thisawardwasinerror.Uponourreview,wefindnothingintheAgreementto L suggestthatthesectionallowingrecoveryofattorneysfeesundertheleasewasa relevantterm 8 thatthepartiesintendedtobeincludedintheAgreement.Tofindotherwisewouldbeto $t interpretthedoubtfullanguageoftheAgreementinfavorofMr.Farnsworth.Suchan ` interpretationwouldbeinviolationofthefifthruleofcontractconstruction.Assuch,thetrial L courtsawardofattorneysfeestoMr.Farnsworthisherebyreversed. 8   RepairsundertheAgreement       Ifthelanguageofacontractis  8  plain,simpleandunambiguous... itisthefunctionofacourttointerpretand p enforcecontractsastheyarewritten,notwithstandingtheymaycontainterms \  whichmaybethoughtharshandunjust.Acourtisnotatlibertytomakeanew H! contractforpartieswhohavespokenforthemselves.4"     Pettyv.Sloan ,277S.W.2d355,359(Tenn.1955)(citing _Smithart_Ԁv.JohnHancockMut.Life  $\" Ins.Co. ,71S.W.2d1059,1063(Tenn.1934)). $H #   %4!$   Uponourreview,wefindthattheAgreementcontains plain,simpleandunambiguous   languageasitreferstotherepairsthatShopiscontractedtomaketothepremises. Id. The  AgreementstatesthatShop will...causetheLeasedPremisestocomplywiththerequirement  oftheLeaseincluding,butnotlimitedto,alloftherepairsandworkdescribed.Thus,itisclear t thatShopwasrequiredundertheAgreementto repair[]andrestore[]theLeasedPremisesas ` requiredbytheLease.Thus,thetrialcourtproperlyfoundthatShopwasboundunderthe L  Agreementtomakeallrepairsrequiredunderthelease,andweherebyaffirmthisfinding. 8     @  @` DisputedDamages  `  1M8   ` Indeterminingwhetherornotagenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsfor  8  purposesofsummaryjudgment,courtsinthisstatehaveindicatedthatthe $  questionshouldbeconsideredinthesamemannerasamotionfordirectedverdict   madeatthecloseoftheplaintiff'sproof,i.e.,thetrialcourtmusttakethestrongest   legitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowall   reasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailing   evidence. _Downen_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co. ,811S.W.2d523,524(Tenn.1991); _Poore_ p v.MagnavoxCo. ,666S.W.2d48,49(Tenn.1984); Dunn v_Hacket_ ,833S.W.2d \ 78,80(Tenn.Ct.App.1992); Wyattv._Winnebago_ԀIndustries,Inc .,566S.W.2d H 276,279(Tenn.Ct.App.1977); Taylor v.NashvilleBannerPub.Co. ,573 4 S.W.2d476,480(Tenn.Ct.App.1978).Then,ifthereisadisputeastoany  p materialfactoranydoubtastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromthatfact,the  \ motionmustbedenied. _Poore_ ,666S.W.2dat49( [_I]f_Ԁthemindofthecourt H entertainsanydoubtwhetherornotagenuineissueexistsastoanymaterialfactit 4 isitsdutytooverrulethemotion.); Dooleyv.Everett ,805S.W.2d380,383   (Tenn.Ct.App.1990).     Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993).      Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfoundthatShopwasresponsibleforallrepairsdueunderthe l lease.Forthereasonsstatedabove,weagree.However,Shopdisputedthecostsofseveral X  repairs,citingtestimonyinvariousdepositions.Specifically,Mr.Faulkner,inhisJune7,2000 D! deposition,statedthatitwashisbeliefthat thepaintontheexteriorofthebuildingcouldhave 0"  beeneasilymatchedrequiringonlyportionsoftheexteriortoberepaintedratherthantheentire #l! exteriorofthebuilding.Thus,ineffect,ShoparguesthatMr.Farnsworthcouldhaveavoideda $X" portionofthecostsawardedbythetrialcourtforthisrepair. $D #   Inaddition,ShopcitedtestimonyinadepositionbythepropertymanagerofMr. &"% FarnsworthinwhichthemanagerstatedthatShopwasonlyresponsibleforrepairsthatwould '#& restorethebuildingtoitsconditionatthebeginningofthelease., #  10      ׀Thismanageralsostatedthat (#' hewasunsureifseveralfiredoorshadbeeninstalledonthepropertyatthebeginningofthe )$( lease.Mr.Farnsworth,inhisowndeposition,alsostatedthathewasuncertainifthefiredoors  hadbeeninplaceatthetimetheleasebegan.Thus,Shopdisputedwhethertherepaircostsfor  thefiredoorsshouldhavebeenincludedinthetrialcourtssummaryjudgmentaward.    Clearly,ShophassufficientlydisputedMr.Farnsworthsfactualclaimsinthesematters ` suchthatitwasinappropriateforthetrialcourttoawardtheserepairsonasummaryjudgment L  motion.Asaresult,weherebyreversethatportionofthetrialcourtsdamageawardthat 8  representsthecostoftherepairsforpaintingtheexteriorofthebuildingandrepairingthefire $ t doors,aswellasanyinterestthatarosefromthoseawards.Theseissuesareremandedtothetrial  ` courtinorderforittomakeafactualdeterminationofwhatportionofthoserepaircosts,ifany,  L  forwhichShopwasliable.Theremainderofthetrialcourtsawardfordamagesisaffirmed.- #  11        8     @  @`  @  @  @h Conclusion        Basedontheforegoingconclusion,thetrialcourtisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart.   Costonappealaretobetaxedequallytoplaintiff,ThomasC.Farnsworth,anddefendants,Gary   P.FaulknerandFaulknersBodyShop,Inc.,andtheirsureties,forwhichexecutionmayissueif p necessary.#XXX X-c5# \    `     h     ___________________________________ h    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE