WPC1/ m -zo-Vv|l ᡓscI R~RH:^w<n 22=vrh#0#:-NN>-EI"=6z奟"$O@ܱ@9ޠ`ťuʺ1a Hц\n0, oBWti}J{^kp%:vQ{_@%{yFbJk[ԇ}. 0E&shIwAc*rNlw`v1*y*(L6jHDy%_|9sQ=ϩRb|y>K.dex.GFl'G }/nALfQrDT#1o_]2rÉ' %P02P0B:[7->ϓ&pb#\ % ^ # 0/ U N w 4 z  i x mz d G 0D NQ 0S 0AE, 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0q 0G 0# 0 0 0 0u 0B 0 ! 0! 0" 0r# 0J$ 0% 0% 0& 0'bU( 0]( 0#)))U@))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 0.*.*.*.* B++ 06+ D3+ D- , 0K:,:, AS,, 0- 0DB. A.HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,00s(L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~($ 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 Z RX$      1  XX  _L XXXX L3X\XXXԀTheappelleespointout,asdidthetrialcourt,thattheguarantywassignedapproximately  twentydaysbeforethe foregoingleasewasexecuted.Astheguarantystatesthatitis in  considerationoftheforegoingleaseandsuchleasehadnotbeenexecutedbythetimetheguaranty  wassigned,theappelleesarguethattheguarantylacksconsiderationandisthereforeunenforceable. t However,mostguarantiesareexecutedbeforethecontractingpartiesarebound;theyarepartofthe ` considerationthatmakesthedealhappen.SeeDunlopTire&RubberCorp.v.ServiceMerchandise L  Co.,667S.W.2d754(Tenn.Ct.App.1983);HickorySpringsMfg.Co.v.Evans,541S.W.2d97 8  (Tenn.1976).#3? X3X\#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  - -22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2   (I Z(Times New Roman (|G2X$ !.84dd8         0  XX d(|3$ !.84dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.84dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.84dd8     _43h48XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  3X\X3h #3hX3X\#  THEGALLERIAASSOCIATES,L.P.v.WILLIAMMOGK,III,etal.3X\X3h   @M M  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty   @ No.II25638RussHeldman,Chancellor   @*AV) ` dE<o ` A߈ p   @ No.M199900470COAR3CVDecidedMay25,_2000_Ԉ k  AV) ` dE<B` A C   Thisisanactionagainstaguarantorofacommerciallease.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtdismissed >  thelandlordscomplaintfindingthattheguarantylackedconsiderationandthatthelandlordhad *z  failedtoofferproofregardinghandwrittenportionsoftheleaseaddressingthecommencementdate f ofthelease.Thelandlordcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinbothrespects.Weagree,andreverse R thejudgmentofthetrialcourtandremandthecausefortheassessmentofdamagesandattorneyfees.#3hX3X\%#3X\X3h >    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversed  andRemanded   _Cantrell_,_P.J._,M.S.#3h3X\#3X\X.3h,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCainandCottrell,JJ.joined.  A.ScottDerrick,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TheGalleriaAssociates,L.P. b ThomasL.Whiteside,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,WilliamMogk,IIIandMarilyn : Mogk. &v @66' OPINION N @)I.#3hX3X\-#3X\X3h  !&! #3hX3X\! #3X\X3h  In1995,theappellantandCG&CEnterprises,Inc.( CG&C)enteredintoatenyear ## commercialleaseforspaceintheCoolSpringsGalleriaMall.TheleasewassignedbyCG&Con $$ March30,1995,andtheappelleesexecutedaguarantyonthesamedate.Theleasewassignedby % % theappellantonApril20,1995.Theguarantyprovidedthattheappelleeswereresponsiblefor r&!& CG&Cspaymentofrentandotherexpenses [f]orthefirstthree(3)LeaseYearsoftheTermofthe ^'"' Lease.TheappellantturnedpossessionofthepremisesovertoCG&ConAugust17,1995andthe J(#( CG&CstoreopenedonOctober18,1995. 6)$)   In1998,theappellantinstitutedadetaineractionagainstCG&C.Therecordindicatesthat +^&+ theappellantwasawardedajudgmentforpossessionoftheleasedpremisesanddamages.On +J', August6,1998,theappellantfiledacomplaintagainsttheguarantorsallegingthatCG&Cwasin ,6(- defaultofitsleaseobligationsandthattheguarantorswereliablefortheunpaidrent. -").' Ї  Afterahearing,thetrialcourtdismissedtheappellantsclaimfindingthat,althoughthe  guarantystatedthatitwas [_i]n_ԀconsiderationoftheforegoingLease,theleasewasnotinexistence  atthetimetheguarantywasexecuted.Thetrialcourtfurtherfoundthattheappellanthadfailedto  offerproofregardinghandwrittenportionsoftheleaseaddressingthecommencementdateofthe t lease#3hX3X\ #3X\X3h.Thisappealfollowed. ` @) II.  8    Theappellantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredindismissingthecomplaint.Specifically,  ` theappellantarguesthattherewasconsiderationtosupporttheenforcementoftheguarantysigned  L  bytheappellees.  8    Wefirstnotethatguarantorsarenotfavoredunderourlaw.Wilsonv.KellwoodCo.,817   S.W.2d313,318(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Inaddition,aguarantorinacommercialtransactionisto   beheldtothefullextentofhisengagementsandthewordsoftheguarantywillbetakenasstrongly   againsttheguarantorasthesensewilladmit.Id.Nevertheless,acontractofguarantyrequires   considerationtobebindingandenforceable.VolunteerStateBankv.DreamerProductions,Inc., p 749S.W.2d744,747(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Generally, [_c]onsideration_Ԁmaybeeitherabenefitto \ thepromisororadetrimenttoorobligationuponthe_promisee_.7Tenn.Jur.Contracts28(1997). H Considerationforacontractofguarantymaybeanextensionofcredittotheguaranteed,an 4 extensionoftimeforthepaymentofthedebt,ordetrimentalreliancebythecreditoronthepromise  p oftheguarantortoguaranteepayment#3hX3X\#3X\X3h.SeeKingv.JohnA.DeniesSonsCo.,404S.W.2d580,588  \ (Tenn.Ct.App.1966);#3hX3X\4#3X\X3hInstitutionalJobbersCo.v.Woodson,No.163,_Blount_ԀCounty(Tenn.Ct. H App.filedJuly28,1989,atKnoxville)(citingAllen,Asher&Co.v.Morgan,24Tenn.(5Hum.) 4 624,626(1845)).     Inthiscase,theappelleessignedaguaranty [_i]n_Ԁconsiderationoftheforegoinglease.The  leaseatissuewasbetweenCG&CandtheappellantforastoreintheCoolSpringsGalleriaMall  which,therecordindicates,wasownedandoperatedbytheappellees.Itappearsthatnotonlydid  theappellantdetrimentallyrelyontheappelleespromisetoguaranteethepaymentofrentforsuch l store,butalsothatthelesseesreceivedthebenefitoftheleasedpremisesforaperiodofthreeyears. X  Therefore,wefindthattherewassufficientconsiderationtosupportthecontractofguarantysigned D! bytheappellees.  #  1      ׀ 0"   #l! Ї@^^( III.     Thenextissuethatmustbeaddressedistheextentoftheappelleesliabilityasguarantors  oftheleasebetweenCG&Candtheappellant.Thecontractofguarantyprovidedthattheappellees t wereunconditionallyandabsolutelyresponsibletotheappellantforCG&Csrentandothercharges `  [f]orthefirstthree(3)LeaseYearsoftheTermoftheLease.Theleasetermwasdefinedin L  section1.2oftheleaseasaperiodcommencing ontheearlierof(1)April15,1995,May1,1995, 8  thedatewhichisSixty(60)daysfollowingLandlordstenderofpossessionoftheLeasedPremises, $ t or(2)thedateonwhichTenantopensforbusinessintheLeasedPremises.However,handwritten  ` notationsontheleasecrossedout April15,1995,May1,1995,thedatewhichisSixty(60)days  L  followingLandlordstenderofpossessionoftheLeasedPremisesandreplacedthephrasewith the  8  datewhichisninety(90)daysfollowingLandlordstenderofpossessionoftheleasedpremises. $  Thetrialcourtpointedoutthattheappellantofferednoproofastowhenthesehandwrittennotations   wereaddedtotheleaseandthatthiswas afailureof[theappellants]proof.Wedisagree,because   theuncontradictedproofshowsthatthepartieswereinagreementastowhentheleasetermbegan.#3hX3X\#3X\X3h     T#3hX3X\I$#3X\X3hhecardinalrulefortheinterpretationofcontractsistoascertaintheintentionoftheparties p andtogiveeffecttothatintention,consistentwithlegalprinciples.BobPearsallMotors,Inc.v. \ RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975).Inconstruingacontract,the H wordsexpressingthepartiesintentionsshouldbegiventheirusual,naturalandordinarymeaning. 4 Taylorv.WhiteStores,Inc.,707S.W.2d514,516(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Indeterminingthe  p intentionsoftheparties,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasheld:  \ 8  Theevidenceofintentistobefoundinthelanguageusedbythepartiesinthe 4 guarantyagreement,consideredinthelightoftheirrespectiveinterestsandother   relevantcircumstancesexistingatthetimetheguarantywasexecuted,andinthe   practicalconstructiongiventoitbytheparties,asdisclosedbytheiractions  subsequenttoitsexecution.   CityofColumbiav.CFWConstructionCo.,557S.W.2d734,739(Tenn.1977). l   Theruleofpracticalconstructionstatesthattheinterpretationplaceduponacontractbythe D! partiesthereto,asshownbytheiracts,willbeadoptedbythecourtandthattothisendnotonlythe 0"  actsbutthedeclarationsofthepartiesmaybeconsidered.HamblenCountyv.CityofMorristown, #l! 656S.W.2d331,335(Tenn.1983).Inaddition, [_i]f_Ԁtheconductofthepartiessubsequenttoa $X" manifestationofintentionindicatesthatallofthepartiesplacedaparticularinterpretationuponit, $D # thatmeaningisadoptedifareasonablepersoncouldattachittothemanifestation.Id.(quoting %0!$ RestatementofContracts235). &"%   WefinditinstructivethatthisCourthaspreviouslyheld: (#' 8  Evidenceofthetermsofanagreementisbetteraffordedbytheactsoftheparties |*%) underitwhileharmoniousandpracticalconstructionreflectstheirintention,than h+&* whensubsequentdifferenceshaveimpelledthemtoresorttolaw,andoneofthem  thenseeksaconstructionatvariancewiththepracticalconstructiontheyhaveplaced  uponitofwhatwasintendedbyitsprovisions.   _McDowell_Ԁv.Rambo,111S.W.2d892,899(Tenn.1937)(citationsomitted). `   Inthiscase,therecordcontainsnodirecttestimonialevidenceregardinghowtheappellees 8  viewedtheconstructionofthephrase leasetermasitrelatedtothetermoftheguaranty.However, $ t therecordestablishesthatCG&CbegantopayrentonOctober18,1995,thedateonwhichthe  ` CG&Cstoreopenedforbusiness.Inaddition,alettersenttotheappelleesfromtheappellants  L  GeneralManagerstates [_p]lease_ԀnotethatinaccordancewithSection1.2ofthelease,theleaseterm  8  shallcommenceninety(90)daysfromAugust17,1995[thedatetheappellanttenderedpossession $  ofthepremisestoCG&C]orthedateyouopenforbusinessintheleasedpremises,whicheverof   suchtwodatesshallfirstoccur.AnotherlettersenttoCG&Cfromtheappellantsaccounting   departmentstatesthat [_t]he_Ԁtermof[CG&Cs]leasewillbefrom[the]commencementdateof   October18,1995....Thereisnoevidencethattheappelleeschallengedorquestionedthe   statementsintheseletterspriortothepresentlitigation. p   Inlightoftheforgoingprinciplesoflawandtheevidenceinthiscase,wefindthattheparties H interpretedtheleasetermasbeginningonOctober18,1995.Therefore,wefindthattheappellees 4 obligationasguarantorsforthefirstthreeyearsoftheleasetermcontinuedthroughOctober18,  p 1998.Accordingtotherecord,CG&CwaslastcurrentinitsrentobligationsinMayof1998.The  \ appelleesarethusliableforCG&CsmonetaryleaseobligationsthroughOctober18,1998. H AlthoughattrialtheappellantassertedthatasofOctober18,1998,CG&Cowedtheappellant 4 $53,228.25inrentandotherchargesunderthetermsofthelease,therecordisnotclearonthisissue.   Accordingly,weremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforadeterminationoftheamountactuallyowed   byCG&CasofOctober18,1998underthetermsofthelease.    Furthermore,thecontractofguarantyprovidesthat intheeventthisGuarantyisplacedin  thehandsofanattorneyforenforcement,GuarantorshallreimburseLandlordforallexpenses l incurred,includingexpensesandreasonableattorneysfeesincurredthroughthetrialcourtsandall X  appeals.Theappelleesarethereforeliablefortheappellantsexpensesandreasonableattorneyfees D! incurredasaresultofthislitigation.Weremandthisissuetothetrialcourtforadeterminationof 0"  suchfees. #l!   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecauseremandedtothe $D # ChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCountyforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Tax %0!$ thecostsonappealtotheappellees,William_Mogk_,IIIandMarilyn_Mogk_. &"% #3hX3X\$#3X\X3h  #3hX3X\=#