WPCh 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ 0d UB* %l U6r U> B) DC AMR U*  v~ B`v} D3P 0@ AO 0D D/ BKf|$3|xQ($ =>[?@UAUBUCUD5eEFӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  ""   YYY FILED"X August17,1998CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\ћ7Z6XXdd7ԜR!# A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE PAULEDWARDHENRY,etux, )C/ANO.03A019804CH00121ELIZABETHANNHENRY,  )      )KNOXCHANCERY PlaintiffsAppellants,  )      )HON.FREDERICKD.McDONALD,v.      )CHANCELLOR      )NOVA,INC.,    )AFFIRMED      )AND DefendantAppellee.  )REMANDEDDONALDE.OVERTONandGLENNAW.OVERTON,OVERTON&OVERTON,Knoxville,forPlaintiffsAppellants.BEECHERA.BARTLETT,JR.,KRAMER,RAYSON,LEAKE,RODGERS&MORGAN,Knoxville,forDefendantAppellee.@ OPINION         Franks,J.  Inthisaction,plaintiffssueddefendantfor moneydamagesonthegroundsof misrepresentation,mutualmistake,breachofwarrantyandnegligenceregardingthepurchaseofanewresidencefromdefendant.Therecisionofthesalewasalsosought.  TheChancellorgranteddefendantsummaryjudgment,stating:0 0 [T]heplaintiffshavetestifiedbyaffidavitthataboutonemonthafterclosingonSeptember29,1993,theynoticedalarge,swiftstreamflowingthroughtheirbackyard.Therefore,theCourtfindsthatplaintiffscauseofactionaccruedapproximatelyonemonthafterSeptember29,1993,andsuitfiledbyplaintiffsonMarch10,1997isbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.  Plaintiffshaveraisedseveralissueswhichmaybecondensedintotwoissuesforconsideration.First,theyinsistthatthefouryearimpliedwarrantyrecognizedinDixonv.MountainCityConstruction,632S.W.2d538(Tenn.1982),isapplicabletothefactsofthiscase,andthatthestatuteoflimitationsdoesnotbartheiractionforfraud,misrepresentation,negligenceandviolationoftheConsumerProtectionAct.  TherecordestablishesthatplaintiffspurchasedanewlyconstructedresidencefromdefendantonSeptember29,1993.Atthetimeofpurchaseplaintiffsreceiveda newhomelimitedwarrantyforaperiodextendingfromSeptember19,1993throughSeptember29,1994.Approximatelyonemonthafterclosing,plaintiffsnoticedalargeswiftstreamflowingthroughtheirbackyard,andcomplainedtothedefendantaboutthefloodingproblem,pursuanttotheexpresswarranty.DefendantmadeattemptsinMarchandMayof1994tocorrectthefloodingproblembyconstructingaswale,butthepropertycontinuedtoflood.  OntheauthorityofDixon,plaintiffsarguethattheyareentitledtorelyonanimpliedwarrantyofgoodworkmanship,materialsandfitnessforhabitation,whichwouldextendforfouryears.However,theDixonCourtlimitedimpliedwarrantiestosales onlywhenthewrittencontractissilentandheldthatvendorsandpurchaserswerefreetocontractinwritingforawarrantyupondifferenttermsandconditionsortoexpresslydisclaimanywarranty.Inthiscase,thewrittenwarrantyprovidedbydefendanttoplaintiffsisstyled anewhomelimitedwarrantyandthefirstparagraphthereofstatesinboldletters:0 0 THISWARRANTYISINLIEUOFANYANDALLOTHERWARRANTIES,WHETHEREXPRESSORIMPLIEDWARRANTIESOFHABITABILITYORMERCHANTABILITY.andsetsforththespecificmatterswarrantied,andthatitwasforaoneyearperiodfromthedateoftransferoftitleoroftheownerstakingphysicalpossession,whicheverwasfirst.Thewrittenoneyearexpresswarrantyinthiscasewasapartofthecontractofsale.Plaintiffsacceptedthiswarrantyatclosing,withoutprotest,andsubsequentlyreliedonthewarrantyinmakingclaimsagainsttheseller.Thecontractualwarrantyclearlydisclaimedallotherwarranties,includingimpliedwarrantiesviableinDixon.Accordingly,theimpliedwarrantypursuanttoT.C.A.472725foraperiodoffouryearswasrenderedinapplicablebythecontractoftheparties,whicheffectivelylimitedthewarrantiestothoseexpressedinthewrittencontract.  Thegravamenofthecomplaintisessentiallyformoneydamages,anditisallegedthat thefairmarketvalueofplaintiffspropertyhaseitherbeendestroyedorhasafairmarketvaluefarlessthanthepurchaseprice.TheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsforactionsforinjurytorealpropertyisT.C.A.283105,andrequiresthatsuchactionsmustbebroughtwithinthreeyears.InPrescottv.Adams,627S.W.2d134(Tenn.App.1982)theplaintiffhadsuedforrecoveryontheoriesoffraud,misrepresentation,negligence,breachoffiduciarydutyandbreachofimpliedwarrantiesandrescissionofthecontract.ThePrescottCourtheld:0 0 Sincethegravamenofthecomplaintinthiscaseisfordamagestorealproperty,wethinkallofthetheoriesadvancedbytheplaintiffsaregovernedbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.(Emphasissupplied).Id.p.137.  Sincethisactionwasfiledmorethanthreeyearsafterthe discoveryofthedamagetoplaintiffsproperty,weholdthestatuteoflimitationsbarsthisaction,andthejudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisaffirmed.  Thecauseisremandedwithcostsoftheappealassessedtoappellants.      __________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________DonT.McMurray,J.