ÿWPC¦ …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0lé 0DU 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv UBÚ % U6" U>X B)– DC¿ AMU*O By–°v~= D3»vÓî 0@Á AOÆP 0D D/Z B‰Úƒç"ÔøÔô3|xO($¡¡ ;U<U=U>b?@EAUBUCUDÓ€((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òNovember€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!&ÔTriggsðð€and€Childersðð€earlier€affidavits€apparently€claim€that€Stooksbury€showed€them€bothÏà0 àSmith€appraisals.€Their€later€affidavits,€however,€refer€only€to€the€second€Smith€appraisal.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`&&&&'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ XXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€!ŠÔÙ€€ÙßR€$'#A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌÌÌ›€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌœÌÌÌÌ›ÌFIRST€TENNESSEE€BANKà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9704„CH„00134ÌNATIONAL€ASSOCIATION,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€KNOX€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€SHARON€BELL,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌC.T.€RESORTS€COMPANY,€INC.,à à)ÌC.€GARY€TRIGGS€and€JAMES€C.à à)ÌCHILDERS,à àà àà àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AND›Ìà àDefendants„Appellants.à àà àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌœÌÌÌ›ÌJ.€MICHAEL€WINCHESTER€and€E.€BRIAN€SELLERS,€LACY€&€WINCHESTER,ÏP.C.,€Knoxville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌœÌÌW.›€MORRIS€œKIFER,€GENTRY,€TIPTOE,€KIFER€&€McLEMORE,€Knoxville,€forÏDefendants„Appellants.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€appeal€is€from€a€summary€judgment€granted€to€plaintiff€againstÏdefendants€by€the€Trial€Judge.Ìà àà àEssentially,€defendants€insist€that€the€record€contains€evidence€ofÏmisrepresentations€of€the€value€of€the€property€by€plaintiffððs€agents,€which€wasÏÑ Ü Ñpurchased€by€defendants,€and€that€these€representations€are€actionable€under€theirÏcounter„claims.Ìà àà àThe€dispute€centers€around€the€purchase€of€16€condominiums€by€C.T.ÏResorts€(C.T.)€from€Valley€Fidelity€Bank€&€Trust€Company€(Valley€Fidelity)€in€MayÏ1990.€€Valley€Fidelity€acquired€several€units€in€Gatlinburg€Village€CondominiumsÏafter€the€original€developer€€became€seriously€ill€and€was€unable€to€complete€theÏproject.€€Valley€Fidelity€completed€construction€and€foreclosed€on€the€property€inÏAugust€1989.€€C.€Gary€Triggs€and€James€C.€Childers,€principals€of€C.T.,€€wereÏinterested€in€purchasing€condominiums€in€the€Gatlinburg€area.€€According€to€theirÏaffidavits,€they€contacted€Re/Max€brokers€€in€Morganton,€North€Carolina.€andÏSevierville,€Tennessee,€and€€reviewed€a€packet€of€information€provided€by€theÏbrokers.€€They€also€assert€that€one€of€the€brokers€stated€that€the€Gatlinburg€VillageÏunits€were€worth€more€than€$100,000.00€each.€€€Ìà à€€à àC.T.€originally€proposed€to€purchase€the€units€for€$1,125,000.00.€€AfterÏValley€Fidelity€rejected€that€proposal,€Triggs€and€Childers€met€with€Ogle€Stooksbury,Ïa€representative€of€Valley€Fidelity,€and€Stooksbury€showed€them€an€appraisalÏprepared€by€Charles€Smith.€€Smith€first€appraised€the€property€on€January€27,€1988,Ïand€the€original€appraisal€stated€values€of€$112,000.00€per€unit€for€the€first€phase€ofÍconstruction€($3,248,000.00€total)€and€$408,500.00€total€for€the€second€phase.€ÏSmith€reaffirmed€these€estimates€in€a€second€appraisal€dated€April€19,€1989.× ƒ( ××  ×€€SmithÏhad€€conducted€both€appraisals€before€the€original€developerððs€illness€and€ValleyÏFidelityððs€acquisition€of€the€property.€€According€to€their€affidavits,€Stooksbury€alsoÏstated€that€the€units€were€worth€the€$112,000.00€value€reflected€in€the€appraisals€orÏpossibly€more€depending€on€how€well€they€would€furnish€them.€€€Stooksbury€alsoÏstated€that€some€work€remained€to€be€done€on€the€units€and€that€Valley€FidelityÏwould€be€responsible€for€it.Ìà àà àStooksbury€also€had€in€his€possession€an€appraisal€prepared€by€JosephÏFannin.€€This€appraisal€was€dated€September€18,€1989,€(after€Valley€Fidelity€acquiredÏthe€property)€and€valued€the€units€at€$81,500.00€to€$85,000.00€subject€to€certainÏrepairs.€€€According€to€Triggsðð€and€Childersðð€affidavits,€Stooksbury€did€not€showÏthem€this€appraisal.€€Ìà àà àAfter€the€meeting,€the€parties€signed€a€purchase€agreement.€€As€part€ofÏthe€agreement,€C.T.€executed€a€promissory€note€to€Valley€Fidelity€for€$1,€125,000.00,Ïa€deed€of€trust€on€the€units,€and€various€other€loan€documents.€€€€Ìà àà àC.T.€defaulted€on€the€note€payments€and€plaintiff€foreclosed€on€theÏsixteen€condominium€units,€and€brought€this€action€to€recover€a€deficiency€judgment,Ïinterest,€attorneyððs€fees€and€costs.Ìà àà àThe€trial€court€initially€granted€summary€judgment€to€plaintiff,€but€thisÍCourt€vacated€the€judgment€and€remanded.€€After€remand,€appellants€filedÏsupplemental€affidavits€and€pleadings€and€the€Chancellor€granted€summary€judgmentÏon€the€basis€that€the€appraisals€were€opinions€of€value,€and€the€disclosure€orÏnondisclosure€was€not€actionable,€and€granted€judgment€to€plaintiff€againstÏdefendants€€jointly€and€severally,€for€$809,296.81.Ìà àà àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€a€party€mustÏprove€that:€(1)€the€defendant€made€a€representation€of€an€existing€or€past€fact;€(2)€theÏrepresentation€was€false€when€made;€(3)€the€representation€was€in€regard€to€aÏmaterial€fact;€(4)€the€false€representation€was€made€either€knowingly€or€withoutÏbelief€in€its€truth€or€recklessly;€(5)€the€party€reasonably€relied€on€the€misrepresentedÏmaterial€fact;€and€(6)€the€party€suffered€damage€as€a€result€of€the€misrepresentation.ÏòòMetropolitan€Govððt€v.€McKinneyóó,€852€S.W.2d€233,€237€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€SinceÏValley€Fidelity€or€its€agents€made€no€representations€of€existing€or€past€facts,€theÏappellants€did€not€offer€material€evidence€of€this€element€in€the€record.Ìà àà àGenerally,€claims€of€value€made€during€commercial€transactions€areÏconsidered€statements€of€opinion€and€do€not€provide€a€basis€for€a€fraud€claim.ÏòòSunderhaus€v.€Perel€&€Lowensteinóó,€388€S.W.2d€140€(1965).€€The€policy€behind€thisÏrule€is€that€ð ðvalue€is€largely€a€matter€of€judgement€and€estimationðð€about€whichÏpeople€may€differ.€37€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòFraud€and€Deceitóó€ðð€113€(1968).€€Ìà àà àAppraisals€are€generally€considered€to€be€a€statement€of€an€opinion.€€ÏAlthough€no€Tennessee€cases€directly€address€this€issue,€this€Court€has€consideredÏappraisals€in€other€contexts€as€estimates€of€value.€òòHiller€v.€Haileyóó,€915€S.W.2d€800Í(Tenn.App.€1995)òò.óó€€Additionally,€Tennessee€courts€have€noted€that€òòcaveat€emptoróó€isÏthe€general€rule€applicable€to€real€estate€transactions.€òòMeyer€v.€Brysonóó,€891€S.W.2dÏ223€(Tenn.App.€1994).€Ìà àà àOur€view€that€these€appraisals€are€opinions€of€value€is€in€accord€withÏcourts€in€other€jurisdictions€who€have€determined€that€an€appraisal€of€land€is€merely€aÏrepresentation€or€an€opinion€of€value€and€therefore€not€actionable.€òòGeorge€v.ÏFederal€Land€Bank€of€Jacksonóó,€501€So.2d€432€(Ala.€1986);€€òòFrazier€v.€SouthwestÏSav.€&€Loan€Assððnóó,€653€P.2d€362€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1982);€òò€Block€v.€Lake€MortgageÏCo.óó,€601€N.E.2d€449€(Ind.App.€3€Dist.€1992).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€onceÏnoted€that€ð ðcommon€experience€discloses€that€witnesses€the€most€competent€oftenÏwidely€differ€as€to€the€value€of€any€particular€lot;€and€there€is€no€fixed€or€certainÏstandard€by€which€the€real€value€can€be€ascertained.ðð€òòMontana€Ry.€Co.€v.€Warrenóó,Ï137€U.S.€348€(1890).€Ìà àà àCases€which€have€reached€the€opposite€conclusion€have€generallyÏdone€so€based€on€facts€not€present€in€this€case.€€The€Virginia€Supreme€CourtÏdetermined€that€an€appraisal€of€a€diamond€could€constitute€an€express€warrantyÏunder€U.C.C.€ðð€2„213.€òòDaughtrey€v.€Asheóó,€413€S.E.2d€336€(Va.€1992).€€In€òòDaughtrey,óóÏhowever,€the€appraisal€form€specifically€described€the€diamonds€as€a€certain€qualityÏand€color,€terms€that€are€not€generally€ascertainable€by€the€average€consumer€whoÏmust€rely€on€the€jewelerððs€superior€knowledge.€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€Smith€appraisalsÏare€contingent€€upon€the€occurrence€of€future€events.€€To€be€actionable,€the€allegedÏmisrepresentation€must€be€of€an€existing€or€past€fact€and€not€merely€conjecture€orÍspeculation€about€future€events.€òòBrungard€v.€Caprice€Recordsóó,€608€S.W.2d€585Ï(Tenn.App.€1980).€€The€first€appraisal€states€that€ð ðthe€value€estimate€conveyed€in€thisÏreport€is€made€subject€to€satisfactory€completion€of€the€plans€and€specificationsÏsubmitted€to€the€appraiser.ðð€Although€it€is€unclear€whether€appellants€actually€sawÏthe€first€appraisal,€the€second€Smith€appraisal€clearly€referenced€it.Ìà àà àAt€the€time€of€the€second€appraisal,€the€construction€had€not€beenÏcompleted€and€the€appraisal€states€that€it€is€an€ð ðopinionðð.€€Accordingly,€appellantsÏwere€on€notice€of€the€contingent,€speculative€nature€of€the€appraisals.€€Ìà àà àAppellants€also€claim€that€Stooksburyððs€failure€to€disclose€the€FanninÏappraisal€was€fraudulent.€€Concealment€or€nondisclosure€of€information€is€fraudulentÏð ðonly€when€there€is€an€existing€fact€or€condition,€as€distinguished€from€a€mereÏopinion,€to€be€disclosed,€and€when€there€is€a€duty€to€disclose€upon€the€party€havingÏknowledge€of€such€facts€or€condition.ðð€òòDozier€v.€Hawthorne€Dev.€Co.óó,€262€S.W.2dÏ705,€711€(Tenn.App.€1953).€€Generally,€there€is€no€duty€to€disclose€unless:€(1)€there€isÏa€previous€confidential€relationship€between€the€parties;€(2)€where€it€appears€one€orÏeach€of€the€parties€expressly€reposes€a€trust€or€confidence€in€the€other;€(3)€or€whereÏthe€transaction€is€intrinsically€fiduciary€and€calls€for€good€faith.€€òòId.óóÌà àà àSince€an€appraisal€is€merely€a€statement€or€opinion€of€value,€and€not€aÏð ðfact€or€condition,ðð€Stooksbury€was€under€no€obligation€to€disclose.€Moreover,Ïnone€of€the€usual€elements€creating€a€duty€of€disclosure€are€present€here.€€The€recordÏshows€that€this€was€an€arms„length€transaction.€€òòAccord,€Simms€v.€Biondoóó,€816ÏF.SUPP..€814€(E.D.N.Y.€1993).€Ó  Óà àà àÓ  Óà àà àAppellants€also€contend€thatÍStooksburyððs€statement€concerning€the€value€of€the€property€was€fraudulent€andÏrely€on€òòSunderhaus€v.€Perel€&€Lowensteinóó,€388€S.W.2d€140€(Tenn.€1965).€ÏòòSunderhausóó€is€distinguished€from€this€case€because€Stooksbury€was€not,€nor€did€heÏrepresent€himself€to€be€an€expert€on€local€real€estate€values.€€Additionally,€the€jewelerÏin€òòSunderhaus€óómade€factual€representations€about€the€diamonds,€such€as€style,€andÏtrade„in€value€to€lend€support€to€his€statement€of€value.€€Appellants€also€cite€òòAugur€v.ÏSmithóó.€18€S.W.€398€(Tenn.€1891).€€In€òòAuguróó,€the€seller€of€land€located€in€MississippiÏtold€the€buyer€that€it€was€timberland€worth€$3.00€an€acre.€€In€reality,€the€land€wasÏð ðcutoverðð€land€worth€only€$.50€an€acre.€òòId.€€Auguróó€is€distinguishable€because€theÏsellerððs€claim€of€value€included€the€factual€representation€that€the€land€was€coveredÏwith€timber€and€the€land€was€far€enough€away€that€the€buyer€relied€on€the€sellerððsÏmisrepresentations€of€the€existing€facts.ÌÓ  Óà àÓ  Óà àà àAppellants€contend€that€Re/Max€broker€was€acting€as€ValleyÏFidelityððs€agent€at€the€time€the€broker€made€representations€of€value,€and€that€ValleyÏFidelityððs€signing€the€showing€agreement€ratified€all€of€the€brokerððs€prior€actions.€Ìà àà àThe€record€shows€that€the€appellants€initiated€contact€with€Re/MaxÏBrokers,€but€assuming€òòarguendoóó€Valley€Fidelity€did€provide€information€and€ratifiedÏthe€brokerððs€prior€actions,€there€is€no€basis€for€liability.€€According€to€appellantsððÏaffidavits,€information€provided€consisted€of€ð ðprojectionsðð€and€notÏmisrepresentations€of€existing€facts.€€Appellants€also€claim€that€the€Re/Max€agentÏtold€them€that€the€units€were€worth€more€than€$100,000.00€each.€€However,€such€isÏan€opinion€of€value€and€not€actionable.Ìà àà àWe€have€reviewed€the€remaining€issues€and€conclude€they€are€eitherÏwithout€merit€or€are€rendered€moot€by€our€decision.Ìà àà àThe€cost€of€the€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€appellants.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà@ àòòà àÌóóà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.