WPC  `3WBXJX1vKE!24u A {vȃn`j=@MK!\ruQ# lchI=*#ǃւ`Zak=*Us@ CT֥\9 Bv"["AǒO@&?h ԋtig+izYhǿqCYSSO|zO$W]A =JZkԁr{d *lxQhz5*Q;2 Iޤ69E2'*DݪeIg!ղ daf܋A,rãܡ(5;Д"~ IxL+jbu 6%0a' Bjh懜քiPPJ„1 42p^{P=U:HI?`rQS P -?y.3p[UūF >>$;TۺiGYwY=b#\ % UN# 0q UN 1G 0c z1  } k 1uB 0DM 72NE^ G&SEyw{4 mb 0 B 0 D3o D- 0K ASm 03 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(;3$2#  0  .3  0   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt RXk$      2  U   _ԀThe$178.12monthlypaymentrepresentednineandonehalfpercentinterestonthesumof$22,500.00. RXk$      1  U   _ԀWenotethatthepartiesarerelated,asMs.HintonisMr.Stephensaunt.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 i)%fH+   RXk$      3  U   _ԀWenotethatMr.Stephensdidthemajorityoftheworkonthehomehimself,andthisfiguredoesnotinclude  achargeforhisownlabor.K+L3|xU- -(|G2Xk$ !.8@d d 8         0  ' d(|3$ !.8@d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8@d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bd d8     _  84dXXdd 8  р@ EINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#E #Ԉ &   JUNE21,2001Session L XhX #XXh#BRENDAGAILHINTONa/k/aBRENDASTEPHENSGRAYv.CAREY J CHRISTOPHERSTEPHENSXhX   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMcNairyCounty  ^ @@No.7441;TheHonorableMarthaB._Brasfield_,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200002727_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober4,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealarisesfromadisputebetweenrelativesoveraparcelofrealproperty.Althoughthe  partiesexecutedacontractwhichstatedthatthepurchasepricewasdueinoneyear,theparties x disregardedthecontractlanguageforelevenyears.Thetrialcourtruledthatthepartieshad d acquiescedintheextensionofthecontractandthattheywerenow_estopped_Ԁtodenythecontracts P validity.Asaresult,thetrialcourtorderedthatthehomebesoldasperthetermsinthecontract. < Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. (x #XXh#XhX Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  <   #Xh#XhX.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andRobertL.Childers,Sp.J.,joined.  GregoryAllenMeyer,Corinth,MS,forAppellant  TerryAbernathy,_Selmer_,TN,forAppellee `!   OPINION #XXh#XhX 8#" #XXh #XhX  @FactsandProceduralHistory %` $    ThepartiesinthiscaseareBrendaGailHinton(Ms.Hinton),andCareyChristopher &8"& Stephens(Mr.Stephens).   #  1      ׀InMarchof1989,thepartiesenteredintoacontractwherebyMr. '$#' StephenswastopurchaserealpropertyownedbyMs.Hinton.Thetotalsalespriceofthehomein ($( questionwas$22,500.00.Thecontractfurtherstatedthat thesumof$22,500shallbedueand )$)  payableoneyearfromthedateofthisinstrument....Mr.Stephens,thebuyer,wastopaymonthly *%* installmentstoMs.Hintonintheamountof$178.12   #  2      ׀beginninginAprilof1989.Thecontractalso   mandatedthatMr.Stephenspayallofthepropertytaxesandinsurancedueonthepropertyduring  theoneyearperiod.Additionally,thecontractstatedthatitembodiedtheentireagreementbetween  thepartiesandthatitcouldnotbealteredoramendedexceptbyasubsequentwrittenagreement. t Mr.Stephensmadealloftheinterestpaymentsduringtheoneyearperiod,andhepaidallthe ` propertytaxesandinsuranceincompliancewiththetermsofthecontract. L    Theoneyearperiodexpired,andneitherpartyapproachedtheotheraboutthecontract.Mr. $ t Stephenscontinuedmakingthe$178.12interestpaymentsforelevenyearsandMs.Hintoncontinued  ` toacceptthemwithoutanyobjection.Mr.Stephensalsocontinuedtopayallofthepropertytaxes  L  andinsuranceduringthistime.ThecourtfoundthatthehousewasinbadconditionwhenMr.  8  Stephensmovedin1989andbegantomakerepairs.Duringthiselevenyearperiod,Mr.Stephens $  madeextensiverepairsandupgradestothesubjectproperty.Overtheyears,Mr.Stephensreplaced   thesidingandtheroof,andhelandscapedtheproperty.Additionally,Mr.Stephensmadeextensive   repairsandupgradestotheinteriorofthehouse.Mr.Stephenssubmittedanexhibitallegingthat   hehasspent$11,594.79ontherepairsandupgradessincehemovedintothehomein1989.     ItwasestablishedattrialthatMs.Hintonsmotherlivesacrossthestreetfromtheproperty \ inquestionandthatMs.Hintonvisitedhermotherfrequently.Mr.StephenstestifiedthatMs. H Hintonvisitedhishousefromtimetotimeandthatshewasawareofsomeoftherepairsand 4 renovationsthathemade.Ms.Hintontestifiedthatshehadonlybeeninthehousetwoorthree  p timesovertheyears.SheadmittedthatshewentintovisitMr.Stephensdaughter,andshesawthe  \ renovationsthatweremadeinthechildsbedroom.Ms.HintonalsoadmittedthatsheknewthatMr. H Stephenshadreplacedallofthesidingonthehome.Ms.Hintonknewaboutsomeoftherepairs, 4 butshestatedthatshehadnoideaaboutmanyoftherepairsthatMr.Stephensmadetothehome.   Mr.StephensneveraskedMs.Hintonifhecouldmakeanyrepairstotheproperty,andMs.Hinton   nevertoldMr.Stephensthatheshouldnotmakeanyrepairstotheproperty.Also,Ms.Hinton  admittedthatherownershipofthepropertyhadnotcostheranythingsinceMr.Stephenshadbeen  livingthere.    Thetrialcourtfoundthat,notwithstandinganylanguageinthecontracttothecontrary,the X  partieshadacquiescedintheextensionofthecontractandthatthepartieswere_estopped_Ԁtodenythe D! contractsvalidity.ThecourtfurtherorderedthatthehousebesoldtoMr.StephensbyAugust11, 0"  2000.Ms.Hintonappeals,andraisesthefollowingissue,asquotedfromherbrief,forourreview: #l!  (5h83 "3"  3K25h  I  .3  0    ThatitwasmanifesterrorandmistakeoflawfortheChancellortofindnotwithstanding $D # [sic]anylanguageinthereferencedContracttothecontrary,bothpartiesfullyacquiesced %0!$ intheextensionofthecontract.3Kx݌&"%(#(# Ќ     )$( StandardofReview        Whenacivilactionisheardbyatrialjudgesittingwithoutajury,ourreviewofthematter  isdenovoontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsbelow.See t Fosterv._Bue_,749S.W.2d736,741(Tenn.1988);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemaynotreversethe ` findingsoffactmadebythetrialjudgeunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. L  See_Jahn_Ԁv._Jahn_,932S.W.2d939,941(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thispresumptionofcorrectness, 8  however,doesnotattachtothetrialjudgeslegaldeterminationsorthetrialcourtsconclusionsthat $ t arebasedonundisputedfacts.See_NCNB_Ԁ_Natl_ԀBankv._Thrailkill_,856S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.Ct.  ` App.1993).  L     LawandAnalysis $       Oursoleissueforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatthepartiesacquiesced   intheextensionofthecontract.Ms.Hintonarguesthatsections4750112(a)and(c)ofthe   TennesseeCodecontrolthiscase.Section4750112(a)oftheTennesseeCodestatesthefollowing   inrelevantpart: [_a]ll_Ԁcontracts...inwritingandsignedbythepartytobebound...shallbeprima p facieevidencethatthecontractcontainsthetrueintentionoftheparties,andshallbeenforcedas \ written....Tenn.CodeAnn.4750112(a)(1995).Moreover,section4750112(c)ofthe H TennesseeCodestatesthat [_i]f_Ԁany...contractcontainsaprovisiontotheeffectthatnowaiverof 4 anytermsorprovisionsthereofshallbevalidunlesssuchwaiverisinwriting,nocourtshallgive  p effecttoanysuchwaiverunlessitisinwriting.Tenn.CodeAnn.4750112(c)(1995).  \     Intheinstantcase,thecontractatissuecontainedaprovisionthatstated [_t]his_Ԁcontract 4 expressesandstatestheentirecontractualagreementbetweentheseparties,andthiscontractshall   notbealtered,amendedormodifiedinanymannerexceptbythesubsequentwrittenagreement   signedbyallparties.Ms.Hintonarguesthatduetotheaforementionedcodesectionsandthe  contractlanguage,thetrialcourtshouldhavefoundthatthecontractembodiedthetrueintentions  ofthepartiesandthatnowrittenamendmenttothecontractwasevermade.However,thecourt  foundthat notwithstandinganylanguageinthereferencedContracttothecontrary,bothofthese l partieshavefullyacquiescedintheextensionoftheContract,andthattheparties,especiallythe X  Defendant,arenow_estopped_ԀtoassertordenythatthereferencedContractisnotpresentlyvalidand D! enforceable.... 0"    Estoppelisanequitabledoctrinewhichpreventsapartyfromraisingaclaimortakingalegal $X" positionwhenherconductwithregardtothatclaimiscontrarytoherposition.SeeRobbysPancake $D # Housev.Martin,21_B.R._Ԁ754,758(_Bankr_.E.D.Tenn.1982). Estoppelrequires(1)words,acts, %0!$ conduct,oracquiescencecausinganothertobelieveintheexistenceofacertainstateofthings;(2) &"% wilfulnessornegligencewithregardtotheacts,conduct,oracquiescence;and(3)detrimental '#& reliancebytheotherpartyuponthestateofthingssoindicated.Id. Thedoctrineofestoppel (#' springsfromtheequitiesofthecase.Itisbasedupontheprinciplesofmorality,aswellasofpublic )$( policy,orexpediency.11Tenn._Jur_.Estoppel4(1995).Wealsonotethataninterestinreal |*%) estatemaybeacquiredbyestoppel.Seeid. Equitableestoppelinthemodernsensearisesfromthe h+&* conductoftheparty,usingthatwordinitsbroadestmeaning,asincludinghisspokenorwritten  words,hispositiveactsandhissilenceornegativeomissiontodoanything.Id.at25.Moreover,  wenotethat thevitalprincipleofequitableestoppelisthatapersonwhobyhislanguageorconduct  leadsanothertodowhathewouldnototherwisehavedonemaynotsubjectsuchpersontolossor t injurybydisappointingtheexpectationsonwhichheacted.31_C.J.S._ԀEstoppelandWaiver63 ` (1996). L    InChurchofChristv.McDonald,171S.W.2d817(Tenn.1943),oursupremecourt $ t discussedindetailthedoctrineofestoppel.Indiscussingwhatconductwasapplicabletoestoppel,  ` thecourtnotedthefollowing:  L    Itisnotabsolutelynecessarythattheconduct...shouldbedonewith $  afraudulentpurposeorintent,orwithanactualandfraudulent   intentionofdeceivingtheotherparty.Theadoptionofsuchan   elementasalwaysessentialwouldatoncestrikeoutsomeofthemost   familiarandbestestablishedinstancesofequitableestoppel.     Id.at821(citationsomitted). \   Wealsonotethat [_e]quitable_Ԁestoppelisnotlimitedtoaparticularfactualsituation,noris H itsubjecttosimple,hardandfastorfixedrulesorrigidcriteria.Whetherornotthedoctrineof 4 equitableestoppelisapplicabledependsontheparticularfactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.31  p _C.J.S._ԀEstoppelandWaiver58(1996).  \   Acquiescencehasbeendefinedasconductfromwhichmaybeinferredassent....Id.at 4 133.Acquiescencearises whereapersonknowsoroughttoknowthatheisentitledtoenforce   hisrightortoimpeachatransactionneglectstodosoforsuchatimeaswouldimplythatheintended   towaiveorabandonhisright.Id.    Thefactsoftheinstantcaseareveryunique.Althoughthecontractatissueclearlystatedthat   [_t]he_Ԁsumof$22,500.00shallbedueandpayableoneyearfromthedateofthisinstrument,the l partiesdidnothingattheendoftheyear.Thepartiessimplycontinuedforelevenmoreyears,each X  withoutaskingtheotheraboutthestatusofthecontract.TheproofattrialshowedthatMr.Stephens D! spent$11,594.79inrepairsandupgradestothehomeovertheyears.  #  3      ׀Whilealloftheserepairsmay 0"  nothavebeenimmediatelynecessary,thecourtfoundthattherewasnoquestionthatthehousewas #l! inastateofmajordisrepairwhenMr.Stephensfirstmovedthere.Theproofalsoshowedthatwhile $X" Ms.Hintonwasnotawareofalloftherepairstothehome,shewascertainlyawareofsomeofthe $D # repairs.Forexample,sheknewthatMr.Stephenshadputnewsidingonthehouse,anditwas %0!$ evidentthathehadlandscapedthegroundsaroundthehome.Ms.Hintonalsoadmittedtogoing &"% insidethehomeafewtimesandnoticingrepairsandcosmeticupgradestothechildsbedroom. '#& EventhoughMs.HintonknewthatMr.Stephenswasspendingmoneyonthehomeoverandabove (#' whatwascalledforinthecontract,sheremainedsilentforelevenyears.Sheneverassertedher  rightsunderthecontract.Instead,shesatidlybywhileMr.Stephensdetrimentallyreliedonher  silencebyspendingconsiderablemoniesandlaboringtomakeahomeforhisfamily.Asaresult,  duetotheuniquefactsoftheinstantcase,weagreewiththetrialcourtthatthepartiesare_estopped_ t todenythatthisisavalidcontract,andthatthepartiesfullyacquiescedintheextensionofthe ` contract. L     Conclusion $ t      Duetotheforegoing,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costsonappealaretaxed  L  toMs.Hinton,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  8    #XXh #XhX $     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE