WPC< ]]0ax~6 LW[ϻ~P;ňcK+#.g NQp%KKؾѠj`2E$-" ]tW/'{l8v^}HbUw5,*Ɖ`nka+Qu:c3'!O@-=/I_?3T"ȼn,dnAJ|4"8O*o)%%?l0zcv`φrY,\AF'|%.?y }FlKaӶpgqvff o&HA[թ8B1qfI:aRIubϩLQE' &MD'֤X% 0% 0<& 0& 0z'b( 0%(( 0D)))wy+^ ,w,4--#- m%-<-'---------1111111111111 07777 B88 08 D3F9 D-y9 0K99 AS9D: 0 ; 0D; A;HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,02G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   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.wpt2>+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  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+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  <:Default ParaXXXXXX\  `&Times New Roman0;;.header   !XXX   !XXX0;;.footer   !XXX   !XXX6114Body Text    XXX    XXX({2IF$ !.8tdd8     - -({2IF$ !.8tdd8      R$      2  <  _TheremainingamountwasreimbursementforthelossofSellerspersonalproperty.(#$  0    R$      3  <  _SellerassertsthatshegavePurchasersanotheroptioninadditiontoabatementofthepurchaseprice:rescission  ofthecontractandreimbursementtoPurchasersfortheworkMr._Hillard_Ԁhaddoneontheproperty. m R$      4  <  _SelleralsoassertsthatPurchasersbreachedthecontractbecauseMrs._Hillard_Ԁdidnotsignthecontract.As  wehavealreadydiscussed,thisfactisnotabartotheplaintiffssuit.¡;) 9?(d3|x U R$      1  <  _Themobilehomewasnotaffectedbythefire.  R$      6  <  _ThissectionofAmericanJurisprudenceprovidesthat  8  8`   [_w]here_Ԁanequitableconversioniseffectedbyanexecutorycontractforthesaleof @ land8[_t]he_Ԁpurchasersinterestunderthecontractisconsideredtoberealty,and X heorsheisdeemedtobetheequitableowneroftheproperty8.Asequitable   owner,thepurchaserbearstheriskoflossontheproperty.` x` x 27AAm._Jur_.2dEquitableConversion13(1996). x R$      5  <  _ThissectionofAmericanJurisprudenceprovidesthat  , @ XX<XXXX  <XX8  8`   ,  [_w]here_Ԁthevendorcarriesinhisownnameinsuranceonthepropertywhichhehas @ contractedtosell,andthelossoccursbeforetitleisconveyedtothepurchaser,the X purchasersrights,asagainstthevendor,inrespectoftheproceedsofsuch   insurancearedeterminedordinarilybywhetherthelosswouldfalluponthevendor  oruponthepurchaser8.[_W]here_Ԁthelosswould,intheabsenceofinsurance,fall `  uponthepurchaser,itisgenerallyheldthatthelattermay,ifready,able,and ( x willingtocompletethecontract,requiretheinsurancemoneytobeusedtowardthe  @ reductionoftheunpaidpurchasemoney,althoughthecontractwassilentasto    insurance.XX<,݌  ` x` x Ќ @ <XX<<  #<<1#55Am._Jur_.VendorandPurchaser403(1946).(|G2$ !.8tdd8         0  < d(|3A$ !.8tdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8tdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8tdd8     _  t8XXdd8  @ tINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#t #Ԉ ,   June2000Session X XXt #tXX#JIMMYB._HILLARD_,etal.v._BUDDIE_ԀRUTHFRANKLINXXt   ` @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforJeffersonCounty  h @@No.97031RichardR.Vance,Judge,ByInterchange  X FILEDSEPTEMBER27,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E200000402_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      #tXXð#XXt)XXXXThisisasuitforspecificperformance.Theplaintiffsenteredintoanagreementwiththedefendant  topurchasecertainrealpropertyfor$80,000.Beforethepurchasewasclosed,ahouseonthe  propertywasdestroyedbyfire,andthedefendantcollected$35,000asproceedsfromher  homeownersinsurancepolicy.Thepurchaseofthepropertydidnotproceedtoclosingandthe z plaintiffsfiledsuitforspecificperformanceofthecontractatapurchasepriceof$45,000this f amountbeingthedifferencebetweentheoriginalpurchasepriceandtheinsuranceproceedscollected R bythedefendant.Thetrialcourtgrantedtheplaintiffssummaryjudgment.Thedefendantappeals, > contendingthatthiscaseisnotripeforsummaryjudgment.Weaffirm.#XXX)Xe##tXXF#XXt *z  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt V Affirmed;CaseRemanded  F   #tXL #XX.tCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, & _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined.  DouglasT.Jenkins,Rogersville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Buddie_ԀRuthFranklin.   JamesS.MacDonaldandAndrewJ.Evans,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,JimmyB. "! _Hillard_Ԁandwife,WilmaJ._Hillard_. v#" !  OPINION #tXXP #XXt V% $ I. 6'"&     Thedefendant,BuddieRuthFranklin( Seller),enteredintoanagreementtoconveycertain )f$( realpropertytotheplaintiffs,JimmyB.Hillard( Mr.Hillard)andhiswife,WilmaJ.Hillard( Mrs. *V%) Hillard)(collectively, Purchasers).OnoraboutMarch11,1996,SellerandMr.Hillardsigned *F&* a ContractforSaleofRealProperty.ThesignaturelineforMrs.Hillardwasleftblank;butthe +6'+ plaintiffMrs._Hillard_Ԁtestifiedinherdepositionthatsheassentstothetermsofthecontract. ,&(,  -)-   Thecontractprovidesforatotalpurchasepriceof$80,000.Purchasersweretopay$10,000   atclosing,andthebalanceinequalmonthlyinstallmentsovertime.Thecontractdoesnotspecify  adateforclosing.    ThecontractcontainsaclausepertainingtoNancyFranklin,amildlyretardedindividual p livinginamobilehomeontheproperty.; 1#  1      ׀ThecontractmandatesthatMs.Franklinbeallowedto `  liveonthepropertyfortherestofherlife.InordertoprovideforthecontingencyofMs.Franklin P  becomingillandleavingtheproperty,resultinginanempty,illmaintainedtrailerthatPurchasers @  wouldbeprohibitedfromremoving,thecontractprovidesasfollows: 0  8  8`   Buyersagreethat[Ms.Franklin]shallhavetherighttoliveinthe `  mobilehomeandshallhavetheuseofthatportionofthesubject P  propertywhichshecurrentlyusesasagardenplotandayard,solong @  assheoccupiesandmaintainsthetrailerandhasherownwater 0  supply.Intheeventthataperiodofthreeconsecutivemonthspass   withoutheroccupancyinthemobilehome,herprivilegetolivethere  isterminated,unlessNancyFranklincannotreturntohermobile  homebecauseofamedicalconditionthatisnotpermanentinnature.` x` x   ShortlyafterMr._Hillard_ԀandSellerexecutedthecontract,thelatterinformedPurchasersthat  shewasnotsatisfiedwiththewordingoftheparagraphconcerningMs.Franklin.Sellerwantedthe p languagemodifiedtosaythatMs.Franklincouldremaininthemobilehomeuntilshedied.Mr. ` HillardtoldSellerthatshecouldcontacttheattorneywhodraftedthecontractforthebenefitofboth P parties,BenStrand,andwordtheparagraphasshesawfit. @   Upontheexecutionoftheoriginalcontract,Purchaserstookpossessionoftheproperty.Mr.  p _Hillard_Ԁthenhadsomefencinganddozerworkdoneonthepropertyatacostofapproximately ` $2,240. P   ThemainhouselocatedonthepropertywasdestroyedbyfireonMay24,1996.OnJune 0 6,1996,Sellerreceiveda$52,900checkfromherinsurancecompany,$35,000ofwhichwas   reimbursementforlossofthedwelling.0X 1#  2      ׀ !   Mr.HillardwasoutofthecountryfromearlyJuneuntilthemiddleofAugust,1996.Shortly #! afterhereturned,hewasinformedbySellerthatshehadreceivedanoffertoselltheproperty,asit $" existedafterthefire,for$60,000.ThereisadisputeastowhetherSellerinformedPurchasersthat % # theywouldhavetomatchorbeatthenewoffer.Mr._Hillard_Ԁstatesinhisdepositionthat,uponbeing p&!$ askedtopaymorefortheproperty,hedeclined,informingSellerthathethoughtshehadovervalued `'"% thepropertyandthathewasnotpreparedtoprocuretheextramoney.Inanyevent,thepartiesagree P(#& thatSellereventuallyconsentedtoclosethetransactionfor$45,000,givingPurchaserscreditforthe  $35,000ininsuranceproceedsshehadreceived._2 1#  3      _ԀOnOctober3,1996,theattorneywhohad  preparedtheoriginalcontractpreparedarevisedcontract,promissorynote,trustdeed,andwarranty  deedreflectingthe$35,000credittotheoriginal$80,000purchaseprice.    TherevisedcontractcontainsthefollowinglanguageregardingNancyFranklin: `  8  8`   Buyersagreethat[Ms.Franklin]shallhavetherighttoliveinthe @  mobilehomeandshallhavetheuseofthatportionofthesubject 0  propertywhichshecurrentlyusesasagardenplotandayard,solong  p  assheoccupiesandmaintainsthetrailerandhasherownwater `  supply.Intheeventthatshebecomesapermanentresidentina P  nursinghomeorothertypeofcarefacility,herprivilegetolivethere @  isterminated,unlessNancyFranklincannotreturntohermobile 0  homebecauseofamedicalconditionthatisnotpermanentinnature. ` x` x SellerreviewedthereviseddocumentsonDecember13,1996.Sherefusedtosignthedocuments,  objectingtotheagreementonfourgrounds:  8  8`   1.ThelanguageregardingMs.Franklinhadbeenrearranged,butthe  substancehadnotchanged.Sellerwasoftheopinionthatthe p languagedidnotadequatelyprovidethatMs.Franklincouldliveon ` thepropertyuntilshedies;P` x` x 8  8`   2.Mrs._Hillard_Ԁhadstillnotsignedtheoriginalcontract;0` x` x 8  8`   3.Sellerhadnotyetreceivedthe$10,000downpaymentcalledfor ` inthatcontract;andP` x` x 8  8`   4.Thepromissorynotecontainedaprovisionthathadnotbeen 0 discussed,i.e.,thatpaymentwastobemadein_Dandridge_. ` x` x SellercommunicatedherobjectionstoMr.HillardonDecember22,1996.Thesaledidnotclose, "  andPurchasersfiledthisactiononMarch24,1997.ThetrialcourtgrantedPurchasersmotionfor #! summaryjudgment,orderingspecificenforcementofthecontractandfixingthetotalpurchaseprice $" ofthepropertyat$45,000,beingtheoriginalpurchasepriceagreedtobythepartieslessthe$35,000 % # thatSellerhadreceivedasinsuranceproceeds.Thisappealfollowed. p&!$   P(#&   II.  $+  BeforewedeterminewhethersummaryjudgmentforPurchasersisappropriate,wemustfirst  examinethebodyoflawrelatingtospecificenforcementofcontractspertainingtothesaleofreal  property. p   Specificperformanceisanequitableremedy. GRWEnterprises,Inc.v.Davis ,797S.W.2d P  606,614(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Generally,acourtwillnotawardspecificperformanceofacontract @  unlessanawardofdamagesisdeemedaninadequateremedy. Shuptrinev.Quinn ,597S.W.2d728, 0  730(Tenn.1979).Giventhatrealpropertyisunique,damagesaregenerallydeemedaninadequate  p  remedyforbreachofrealestatecontracts,and,accordingly,suchcontractsaregenerallyeligiblefor `  specificperformance.See,e.g., _McGaugh_Ԁv._Galbreath_ ,996S.W.2d186,191(Tenn.Ct.App. P  1998). @    Acontractmustmeetcertainrequirementsbeforeacourtwilldecreespecificperformance.   Thecontractmustbe clear,completeanddefiniteinallitsessentialterms. Parsonsv.Hall ,199  S.W.2d99,100(Tenn.1947).It mustshowbeyonddoubtthatthemindsofthepartiesactually  met. Id .Thecontractmustalsobe freefromanysuspicionoffraudorunfairness. _GRW_, 797  S.W.2dat614(citing Johnsonv.Browder ,185Tenn.601,605,207S.W.2d1,3(1947)).The  determinationofwhetheracontractshouldbespecificallyenforcedlieswithinthediscretionofthe  trialcourtanddependsuponthefactsofeachcase. _Shuptrine_ ,597S.W.2dat730. p   WenowturntotheissueofwhethersummaryjudgmentforPurchasersisappropriateunder P therecordnowbeforeus.Indecidingwhetheragrantofsummaryjudgmentisappropriate,courts @ aretodetermine ifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile, 0 togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactand  p thatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Courts `  musttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowall P reasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Byrdv.Hall , @ 847S.W.2d208,210211(Tenn.1993). 0   Thus,thequestionsacourtmustconsiderindeterminingwhethertograntordenyamotion ! forsummaryjudgmentare(1)whetherafactualdisputeexists;(2)whetherthatfactismaterial;and "  (3)whetherthatfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial. Id .at214. Adisputedfactismaterialifit #! mustbedecidedinordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected. $"  Id .at215.Adisputedmaterialfactcreatesagenuineissueif areasonablejurycouldlegitimately % # resolvethatfactinfavorofonesideortheother. Id .Thephrase genuineissuerefersexclusively p&!$ tofactualissuesandnottolegalconclusionsthatcouldbedrawnfromthefacts. Id .at211. `'"%   Thepartyseekingsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenofdemonstratingthatthereisno @)$' genuineissueofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. Id .at215. 0*%( Oncethemovingpartysatisfiesitsburdenofshowingthatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,  +p&) theburdenthenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoshowthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfact ,`'* requiringsubmissiontothetrieroffact. Id .Thenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponits  pleadings,butrathermustsetforth,byaffidavitordiscoverymaterials,specificfactsshowinga  genuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.06; Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215.The  evidenceofferedbythenonmovingpartymustbetakenastrue. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215216.    III. `  A. @  >  Sellerfirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentbecausetherewas  p  nomeetingofthemindswithrespecttoMs.Franklinbeingallowedtoliveontheproperty.More `  specifically,shearguesthatthecontractisincompletebecauseshesigneditbelievingthattheproper P  languagewouldbeaddedlater,becausethecontractwasneversignedbyMrs.Hillard,andbecause @  thecontractwasnevernotarized. 0    [_T]he_Ԁparolevidenceruleprovidesthatcontractingpartiescannotuseextraneousevidence  toalter,vary,orqualifytheplainmeaningofanunambiguouswrittencontract. _GRW_ ,797S.W.2d  at610  .Beforeacontractfortheconveyanceofrealpropertycanbeenforced,thestatuteoffrauds  requiresthatitbe signedbythepartytobecharged.T.C.A.292101(a)(Supp.1999);seealso   Pattersonv.Davis ,192S.W.2d227,229(Tenn.Ct.App.1945).Evidencepertainingtotheother  partysacceptanceofthecontractmaybebywayofparolevidence. Id . p   Basedontheaboverulesoflaw,wefindthattherewasameetingofthemindsregarding P whetherandunderwhatconditionsMs.Franklincouldremainontheproperty.Thecontract @ languageregardingMs.Franklinisclearandunambiguous.Itprovidesthatshehastherighttolive 0 onthepropertyunlessshefails,forthreeconsecutivemonthsandforanyreasonotherthananon  p permanentmedicalcondition#tXX> #XXt,tooccupythemobilehome.Thecontractbeingunambiguousinthis ` regard,thecourtmaynotconsiderextraneousevidenceindicatingthatSellersignedtheagreement P underthebeliefthatthelanguagewouldlaterbechanged.Becausesuchextraneousevidencemay @ notbeconsidered,itcannotconstituteadisputedmaterialfactrenderingsummaryjudgment 0 inappropriate.     TheremainingfactsthatMrs.Hillarddidnotsignthecontractandthatthecontractwas "  notnotarizedareundisputed.BecauseSelleris thepartytobecharged,theagreementis #! enforceableagainsther.ThefactthatMrs.Hillarddidnotsignthecontractisimmaterial;sheisnot $"  thepartytobechargedinthislawsuit._   Her_Ԁassenttothetermsofthecontractisreflectedinher % # participationinthisactionasaplaintiffandherdepositiontestimony.See id . p&!$   Sellerdoesnotciteanyauthorityforherassertionthatthecontractisincompleteduetothe P(#& factthatitwasnotnotarized,norareweawareofany.Thelackofanotarysacknowledgmentis @)$' notmaterialinthiscasewherenoonequestionsthevalidityofthesignaturesaffixedtothecontract. 0*%(    +p&)   Therelevantfactsintherecordreflect,withoutequivocation,thattherewasameetingofthe   mindsinthiscase.    SellernextarguesthatPurchasersarenotentitledtotheremedyofspecificperformance  becausetheybreachedthecontract.Morespecifically,shecontendsthatPurchasersbreachedthe p contractbecause,accordingtoher,theydidnottenderthe$10,000downpayment.4 1#  4       `    Wedisagree.Itistruethattheremedyofspecificperformance existsforthebenefitofthe @  aggrievedpartytoabreachofacontractandnottothepartyguiltyofthebreach. Wallv._Thalco_, 0  Inc. ,614S.W.2d803,806(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).Purchasers,however,didnotbreachthecontract.  p  Underthetermsoftheagreement,Purchasersareobligatedtotendertheir$10,000downpayment `  atclosing.Becausethetransactionneverclosed,Purchasersobligationtomakethedownpayment P  wasnevertriggered. @    Bothpartiesmakemuchoutofthereasonsforwhichthetransactionneverclosed.   PurchasersassertthatSellerdelayedtheclosing,firstbecauseshedesiredtoremoveherpersonal  propertyfromthehousepriortoclosing,andlaterbecauseshedesiredtosettleherinsuranceclaim  priortoclosing.TheyfurtherintimatethatSellerbalkedatclosingthetransactionduetoherdesire  toacceptthehigheroffershereceivedsubsequenttoexecutionofthepartiescontract.Seller,in  contrast,contendsthatPurchasersdelayedtheclosingduetotheirinabilitytoraisesufficientfunds  toperformthecontract. p   Timeisgenerallynotoftheessence intheabsenceofanexpressstipulation,amanifestation P ofintentionfromthecontractorsubjectmatterinvolved,oranimplicationfromthenatureofthe @ contractorcircumstancesofthecase. CommerceStreetCo.v.GoodyearTire&RubberCo. ,215 0 S.W.2d4,11(Tenn.Ct.App.1948)(quoting12Am.Jur.Contracts308(1938)).Thecontractdid  p notsetaclosingdate,andthecircumstancesdonotsuggestthattimewasoftheessence.The ` inescapablefactisthatthetransaction,forwhateverreason,didnotclose.ItfollowsthatPurchasers P obligationtomakethe$10,000downpaymentneverarose,andhence,theydidnotbreachthe @ contractbynottenderingthedownpayment.Therefore,wecannotsaythatsummaryjudgmentwas 0 inappropriatebasedontheassertionbySellerthatPurchasersbreachedthecontractbyfailingto   tendertherequireddownpayment. !   Sellernextarguesthatthetrialcourtsorderwasinappropriatebecauseitdidnotadjudicate #! Ms.Franklinsinterestintheproperty.Wedisagree.Purchasers,underthecontractasspecifically $" enforcedbythetrialcourt,havealegalobligationtoMs.Franklinasathirdpartybeneficiary.There % # isnoreasontoaddressthatobligationfurtherbecausethereisnoindicationthatPurchaserswillnot p&!$  complywiththetermsofthecontractasenforcedbythetrialcourt.Thereisnojusticiable `'"% controversy,andthus,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourts failuretoaddressMs.Franklinsinterest  inthepropertyrenderssummaryjudgmentinappropriate.     Finally,Sellerarguesthatthedoctrineoflachesprecludesspecificenforcementoftheparties  contract.Wefindthisargumenttobewithoutmerit.Timewasnotoftheessenceofthiscontract. p Furthermore,regardlessofthedelayandwhichpartywasresponsibleforthedelay,itisclearthat `  Sellerobjectedtotheagreementforseveralreasonsanddidnotintendtoclosethetransaction.Any P  harmshemayhaveexperiencedwasthusselfinflicted,andnotduetoanyallegeddelaybyeither @  party. 0    Whileanumberofpostcontractfactsareclearlyindispute,thesedisputesarenotmaterial `  tothecentralissueofwhetherPurchasersareentitledtospecificperformanceofthecontract P  executedbySeller.AssumingthatSellersversionofthesefactsistrueanassumptionwemust @  makeinthissummaryjudgmentanalysisnoneofthosefactsisabartotheplaintiffsclaimfor 0  reliefinthiscase.     Fortheforegoingreasons,wefindandhold(1)thatPurchasershavecarriedtheirburdenof  showingthatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact;and(2)thatSellerhasfailedtocarryher  burdentoshowtheexistenceofsuchadisputedmaterialfactspawningagenuineissuefortrial.  Therefore,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterringrantingsummaryjudgmenttoPurchasers.    B. ` c  Thesecondissueraisedonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinreducingthepurchase @ priceofthepropertybytheinsuranceproceedsreceivedbySellerwhenthehouseontheproperty 0 wasdestroyedbyfire.  p   Thiscourtaddressedasimilarissuein Kingv._Dunlap_ ,945S.W.2d736(Tenn.Ct.App. P 1996).Inthatcase,thesellersagreedtosellrealpropertytoapurchaseronaninstallmentbasis, @ withdeliveryofthedeedtooccuruponfullpaymentofthepurchaseprice. Id. at737.Thebuilding 0 onthepropertywasdestroyedbyfireafterthepurchaserhadmadesomepayments,butbefore   conveyanceoftheproperty. Id .Atthetimeofthefire,thepurchaserstillowedthesellers$5,500. !  Id .at738.Thepurchaserfiledsuitagainstsellersandtheirinsurancecompanywhensellers "  informedhimthattheyintendedtoretaintheentire$30,000ofinsuranceproceedstheyhadcollected #! fromtheirinsurancecompany. Id .at737,738.Thepurchaserassertedthatthesellerswereonly $" entitledtocollectthebalanceowedonthepropertyandthatthepurchaserwasentitledtothebalance % # oftheinsuranceproceeds. Id .at738.Thetrialcourtruledinfavorofthepurchaser. Id .at739. p&!$   Thesellersinsurancecompanyappealed,assertingthatitsonlyobligationwastothesellers P(#& andthattheamountoftheobligationwaslimitedtotheamountofthepurchasersoutstanding @)$' indebtednesstothesellers. Id .at741.Inresolvingthisissue,wequotedextensivelyfromthe 0*%( unreportedcaseof Parkerv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. ,C/ANo.141,1988WL138923  +p&) (Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedDecember30,1988),whichinvolvedasuitbetweenasellerandits ,`'* insurancecompanyundercircumstancessimilartothosein King .Mostpertinenttoresolutionof  theinstantcaseisthefollowinglanguagefrom Parker :  8  8`   Ingeneral...wheretheinsuredvendorhassoldthepropertyandthe  vendeehasgoneintopossessionandpaidaportionofthepurchase p price,buttitleisstillheldbytheinsured,asbetweentheinsuredand `  theinsurertheinsuredistheownerofboththelegalandequitable P  titlestothepropertyandentitledtorecoverthefullamountofthe @  policy.However,asbetweenthevendorandthevendee,theinsured 0  takestheproceedsofinsurancewhichexceedtheamountowedtothe  p  vendor,astrusteeforthevendee.` ` x` x  Parker ,1988WL138923at*1.Afterquotingthisportionof Parker ,theopinionin King proceeds @  toquoteportionsof Parker examiningcasesinotherjurisdictionsholdingtothesameeffect.See 0   King ,945S.W.2d#tXXmF#XXtat741744; Parker ,1988WL138923at*2*4.     Wenotethat King and Parker ,aswellasthecasesdiscussedinthoseopinions,deal  primarilywiththequestionofwhetheraninsurancecompanyisrequiredtopaythefullamountof  thepolicyorwhetheritsobligationislimitedtothesellersbeneficialinterestintheproperty,i.e.,  theunpaidbalanceofthepurchaseprice.Intheinstantcase,theinsurancecompanyhasalreadypaid  thefullamountofthepolicytoSeller,andthequestionatissueiswhethertheproceedsreceivedby p Sellermustbeappliedtowardsthepurchaseprice. `   BecausewehavenotfoundaTennesseecasesquarelyonpoint,welooktoothersourcesfor @ guidance.Webeginbynotingthefollowingdictafrom King and Parker : 0 8  8`   At5AAppleman,InsuranceLawandPractice,21215(1970),itis ` stated:P` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xTheequitablerulehasobtainedinmanystatesthat 0 wherethebuildingwhichwasthesubjectof   conveyanceisdestroyedordamaged,thevendormust ! applytheproceedsuponthepurchasepriceand "  accountforthebalancetothepurchaser.Other #! jurisdictionshavestatedthevendormusteitherapply $" theproceedstothepurchasepriceortorepairs.Nor % # wouldcarryingoutthecontractwithoutabatementof p&!$ thepurchasepriceafterthebuildingburnedaffectthe `'"% purchasersrightstotheinsurancemoney.P(#&   8  8`   Also,withregardtotherightstoinsuranceproceeds,itisstatedat92 0*%( _C.J.S._,Vendor&Purchaser,296: +p&)` x` x  ,`'* 8  8`   8 ` x` x[_T]he_Ԁinsurancemoneyinacaseoflossisasbetween  thepartiesandtheinsurancecompany,payableto,  andcollectablebythevendor...asbetweenthe  vendorandthepurchaser,thebetterrulewouldseem  tobethatitshouldbelongtowhoevermustbearthe p lossresultingfromtheinjurytotheproperty.Hence, `  ifthelossfallsonthepurchaser...heisentitledtothe P  benefitoftheinsurancemoney,andifitiscollected @  bythevendor,hewillholditforthebenefitofthe 0  purchaserwhowillbeentitledtocreditthereforonthe  p  unpaidpurchasepriceoronamortgageindebtedness `  assumedbyhimaspartofthepurchaseprice.P     King ,945S.W.2d#tXXq#XXtԀat74344; Parker ,1988WL138923at*4. 0    Thus,accordingtothisdicta,asellermustapplyinsuranceproceedstothepurchaseprice,  atleastwheretheriskoflossfallsonthepurchaser.Seealso55Am.Jur.VendorandPurchaser  403(1946)._E 1#  5      _ԀTheriskoflossduringtheperiodbetweenexecutionofacontractforthe  conveyanceofrealpropertyandtheclosinggenerallyfallsonthepurchaser.See27AAm.Jur.2d  EquitableConversion13(1996).<  1#  6      ׀    p   In Gillesv.Sprout ,196N.W.2d612(Minn.1972),theMinnesotaSupremeCourtfoundthis  tobethemajorityruleandappliedittofactsalmostidenticaltothoseoftheinstantcase.In Gilles ,  theissuewasframedasfollows:   8  8`   Whereanexecutorycontractforthesaleofimprovedrealestatehas p noprovisionforinsuranceagainstlossbyfireandtheimprovement `  isaccidentallydestroyedbyfirewhilethevendee,pursuanttothe P  contract,isinpossessionpendingitsperformancebytheparties, @  shouldtheinsuranceproceedscoveringthelosscollectedbythe 0  vendorunderafireinsurancepolicy,procuredbyhimathisexpense,  p  beappliedtoreducethebalanceofthepurchasepriceowedbythe `  vendee?P ` x` x  Id .at613.TheCourtstatedthatithadexaminedthelawofotherjurisdictionsandfoundthat 0  8  8`   themajoritygenerallyholdsthatwherethevendeemustbeartheloss  ofanaccidentaldestructionofthepropertypendingcompletionofthe  sale,thevendormustcredittheinsuranceproceedstothecontract  priceabsentanycontractualagreementtothecontrary.` x` x  Id .at61314. p    `     h      p       Wefindthereasoningof Gilles persuasiveandapplyittothefactsoftheinstantcase. P Accordingly,wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinreducingthepurchasepriceofthe @ propertybytheamountoftheinsuranceproceedscollectedbySellerafterthehouseontheproperty 0 wasdestroyedbyfire.  p   SellerarguesthattheruleshouldnotapplybecausePurchaserswerenotinpossessionofthe P property.SheadmitsthatPurchasersinitiallytookpossessionofthepropertysubsequentto @ executionofthecontract,butsheassertsthatshe apparently8regainedpossessionoftheproperty 0 atsomepointbecause[Mr.Hillard]deniedhavingpossessioninhisdiscoverydeposition8.An   examinationoftheportionofMr.HillardsdepositionSellercitestoassupportforhercontention ! revealsthatMr.Hillarddidnotaffirmativelydenyhavingpossession.Inresponsetobeingasked "  whetherhehadeverpaidthe$10,000downpayment,heresponded: #! 8  8`   No,becauseIvehaditallthetimebutIvenevertookneverwas % # ЄwhodoIgiveitto?IdgiveittonobodyuntilIseeIvegotthe p&!$ propertyactuallyinpossession.`'"%` x` x   WeareoftheopinionthatthequestionofwhetherPurchaserswereinpossessionofthe @)$' propertydoesnotcreateagenuineissuebecausenojurycouldlegitimatelyconstrueMr.Hillards 0*%( commentasadenialthathewasinpossessionoftheproperty.Rather,hewasexplainingthatthe  +p&) reasonhedidnottenderthedownpaymentwasthathewasunsurewhetherSellerwasgoingto ,`'* performhercontractualobligations.SelleradmitsthatPurchaserswereinitiallyinpossession.She  statesthatshe apparentlyregainedpossessionbasedonherafterthefactreadingofMr.Hillards  responsetoadifferentquestion.Therefore,wefindnogenuineissueofmaterialfactrelatingto  whetherPurchaserswereinpossessionofthepropertyafterexecutionofthecontract.  ,  XXXX  ,ϑ    Inaccordancewiththeabovediscussion,wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrin `  grantingsummaryjudgmenttoPurchasers,specificallyenforcingthecontractandabatingthe P  purchasepricebytheamountofinsuranceproceedsSellerreceivedfromherinsurancecompany.,ϑ5݌ @  Ќ  XXXX    IV.  p    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thecaseisremandedforenforcementofthetrial P  courtsjudgmentandcollectionofcosts,assessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costson @  appealaretaxedtotheappellant. 0  #tXX}#XXt   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE