WPC 2h\Po_ >ߌb\PZ0]&j%-< +XTm=qEd ɃX?;~G&$2M˩S` -頨.0?^1UIKAv6)݌*|P5 /PE/L.Ri3CoG-Bi*!7(E=ƮJI ƪ8C9C^"ÎTV2ΐ&xiPK&ɱ-3[3cRo'F |驐*|[ŸҔ"9:s(L ,G Nv޶}t9Rbp5;~fZ( q+D<ӕ .Ӭ\Me ȫr@#m1OR @ %:x}t[ GsqLF]NxWZz0 ab#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  NEb 0 B 0 D5i D- 0K ASi 0/ 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0vf-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-\k1 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 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G24$ !.8WdXXd8         0   d(|3h$ !.8WdXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3h$ !.8WdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Wdd8     _  W8QXXdd8  @ HWINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#WH #Ԉ &   September5,2002Session L XQXW #WXXQ#WILLIAM_HAMER_,etal.v.ROBERTC.HARRIS,etal.XQXW  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Cheatham_ԀCounty  J @@No.9810AllenW.Wallace,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200200220_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember6,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Homeownerssuedabuilderfordefectiveconstruction.Thetrialcourtawardeddamagesforbreach x  andattorneysfeesundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.Wereversetheawardof d attorneysfeesbaseduponnoproofofdeceptive,misleadingorunfairconductbythebuilder. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasaRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt (x ReversedandRemanded  d   #WXQ#XQX.WEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,_Sp.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand < PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,#WXXQ5#XQXWjoined. ( ToddE.Panther,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RobertC.Harris.  AshleyN.Arnold,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,William_Hamer_ԀandJune_Hamer_.   OPINION #WXXQO#XQXW ` #WXXQ #XQXW    Thislitigationarisesoutofdefectsintheconstructionofanewhome.Theplaintiff 8!  homeownerssuedforbreachofcontractandwarranty,fraudintheinducementandviolationofthe $"t! TennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheplaintiffsclaimsforfraudand #`" awillfulviolationoftheActbutfoundthatthehomehadnotbeenbuiltinagoodandworkmanlike #L# mannerandawarded$16,590.00inactualdamages.Thetrialcourtalsofoundthatthedefendants $8 $ actionsviolatedtheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActandawardedattorneysfeesof$15,813.00. %$!%   Thedefendanthasappealedtheawardofattorneysfees.Thesoleissueiswhethertherewas '"' aviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct. (#(   HavingconcludedthattheproofdoesnotsupportafindingofviolationoftheAct,wereverse p*%* thetrialcourtsawardofattorneysfees. \+&+  4-(- _  TheplaintiffsenteredintoacontracttobuildanewhomeintheBluffsoftheHarpeth  subdivision.    Afterconstructionwascompletedandtheplaintiffsmovedintothehome,theydiscovered t leaksinthebasement,thatthehomewasnotincompliancewithcodes,thattherewasastructural ` defectinthebasementwall,andthatthebrickveneerwasseparatingfromthefoundation.Although L  thedefendantperformedpunchlistworkandsomerepairsontheleakingbasement,hedenied 8  responsibilityfortheremainingproblems.WhenthedefendantdidnotrespondtoaMarch5,1998 $ t letterdetailingtheproblems,theplaintiffshiredastructuralengineerandhomemaintenance  ` companywhoperformedwaterproofing,installationofFrenchdrains,reinforcementofthebasement  L  walls,repairofthebrickveneerandbroughtthehomeintocompliancewithcodes.Theplaintiffs  8  thenfiledthislawsuittorecovertheirdamages. $    InconcludingthattheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActhadbeenviolatedandthat   attorneysfeesshouldbeawarded,thetrialcourtfoundthattherewereextensivedefectsinthe   plaintiffsnewhomeandthatthedefendantsactionswereunfairandaviolationoftheActbecause   hehadreceivednoticeofthedefectswithinoneyearoftheclosingontheplaintiffshomebuthad p notadequatelyaddressedthosedefects. \   TheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActwasenactedto protectconsumersandlegitimate 4 businessenterprisesfromthosewhoengageinunfairordeceptiveactsorpracticesintheconduct  p ofanytradeorcommerceinpartorwhollywithinthisstate....Tenn.CodeAnn.47-18-102(2)  \ (2001).Section47-18-104(b)specificallyidentifies representingthatgoodsorservicesareofa H particularstandard,qualityorgrade,orthatgoodsareofaparticularstyleormodel,iftheyareof 4 another,isaviolationoftheAct.Erroneousdenialofaclaim,however,unaccompaniedbydeceit   orothermisleadingconduct,doesnotconstitutedeceptionorunfairness.Myintv.AllstateIns.Co.,   970S.W.2d920(Tenn.1998).Theremustbesomedeception,misrepresentationorunfairnessin  additiontoabreach.    Inthecaseatbar,weconcludethatneitherthefindingsofthetrialjudgenorareviewofthe l proofrevealsanunfairordeceptivepractice.Thedefendantrefusedtoperformrepairsandwarranty X  itemsbecausehedeterminedthatitwasnothisresponsibilityunderthetermsofhiscontract.He D! wasadjudgederroneousinthatdetermination,heldbythetrialjudgetobeinbreachofhis 0"  obligationsandassesseddamagesforthatbreach.ButlikeMyinttherecordrevealsnoevidenceof #l! deceptionorunfairaction. $X"   Wethereforereversetheawardofattorneysfeesandremandthismattertothetrialcourt. %0!$ Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheplaintiffs.#WXXQ8 #XQXW &"%    `     h     ___________________________________ |*%)    `     h     ELLENHOBBSLYLE,SPECIALJUDGE