ÿWPC` …# VU:a %› 0@¡w@á4! 5 0„D 0DÈ  0J 0T^ 0^² 0h 0rx 0|ê 0†f 0ì 1u| 0dñ BUU6rB)¨DCÑ AMU*a0‹ D3»"îß 0@ï;/v~jvÓè AO»Æ  0DÐ D/ BC˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <Ô6X9`+"Courier 10cpiX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó stDuDvUwDxyz{D|Ó€©U!3|x‡(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òOctober€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThis€agreement€was€reflected€in€a€March€21,€1978€letter€from€Mr.€Jahn€toÏAttorney€Griffin€and€Mr.€Griffin.óóÌ ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThis€suit€was€filed€in€September,€1986.óóÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€note€that€the€detailed€records€were€available€during€the€discovery€processÏof€this€trial,€but€were€destroyed€prior€to€the€trial.óóÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€—XXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€')&;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌJAHN€&€JAHN,€Attorneys,€€€€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CHAN…CERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9604„CH„00167Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€HOWELL€N.€PEOPLESÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌSQUARE€ENTERPRISES,€INC.,€€€€€€€)à àMODIFIED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€INÌWILLIAM€T.€GRIFFIN€and€wife,€€€€)€€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌPEARL€T.€GRIFFIN,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àDefendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌRICHARD€P.€JAHN,€JR.,€and€J.€CHRISTOPHER€CLEM,€Jahn€and€Weeks,€ChattanoogaÏfor€appellants.ÌÌÌC.€CREWS€TOWNSEND€and€W.€SCOTT€PARRISH,€Miller€and€Martin,€Chattanooga,Ïfor€Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.Ì›Ìà àThis€is€an€action€for€the€collection€of€attorney€fees.€€The€œplain…tiff,›€Jahn€&€Jahn,€Attorneys,€and€its€predecessor€firms,€filed€suit€toÏcollect€fees€for€work€performed€dating€back€to€at€least€1975.€€Suit€wasÏfiled€in€1986,€but€the€trial€was€delayed€several€times€due€to€negotiationsÏand€the€poor€health€of€the€parties.ÌÌà àThe€extensive€legal€work€involved€was€centered€on€the€œdefendants'›Ïattempt€to€purchase€œalmost›€12,000€acres€in€Franklin€and€Marion€œCounties.€ÏA›€total€of€six€œlawsuits€were€filed›€in€federal€and€state€œcourts,›€with€theÏœdefendants›€here€involved€as€both€plaintiffs€and€defendants€in€the€œactions.€›ÏIn€addition,€there€were€five€appeals€to€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Ap…peals,€and€four€appeals€to€our€state€appellate€œcourts.ÌÌà àOriginally,›€Jahn€&€Jahn€was€to€be€paid€on€an€hourly€basis,€subjectÏto€the€approval€of€North€Carolina€attorney€James€Griffin,€the€personalÏattorney€of€œdefendant›€William€T.€Griffin€(no€relation).€€€For€work€done€inÍ1973€and€1974,€œplaintiff›€billed€œdefendants›€a€total€of€$28,000,€which€wasÏapproved€by€Attorney€Griffin€and€paid€by€Mr.€Griffin.€€However,€in€1975Ïand€1976,€Mr.€Griffin€sought€to€negotiate€a€new€fee€arrangement.€€Plain…tiffs€continued€to€provide€legal€services,€but€did€no€further€billing.€ÏPart€of€the€negotiations€for€the€new€fee€arrangement€called€for€AttorneyÏGriffin€to€mediate€or€arbitrate€any€fee€disputes.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€record€includesÏseveral€letters€from€the€parties€attempting€to€negotiate€the€proper€feeÏarrangements€for€the€legal€services€provided.ÌÌà àNegotiations€finally€broke€œdown›€and€œplaintiff›€filed€suit€to€collectÏits€fees€in€1986.€€Mr.€Griffin€died€in€1988,€and€his€estate€was€substitut…ed€as€a€party.€€Trial€of€this€matter€was€held€on€January€25,€1995.€€TheÏillness€of€€Richard€P.€Jahn,€Sr.,€a€partner€with€Jahn€&€Jahn,€and€theÏattorney€primarily€responsible€for€the€œservices›€provided,€necessitated€aÏcontinuance€until€June€7,€1995.€€In€the€interim,€Pearl€T.€Griffin,€wife€ofÏWilliam€T.€Griffin,€died,€and€her€estate€was€substituted€as€a€party.€€TheÏChancellor€dismissed€the€cause€against€Pearl€Griffin,€and€ordered€judgmentÍagainst€the€remaining€defendants€in€the€amount€of€$238,185.20.€€ThisÏappeal€œfollowed.ÌÌà àPlaintiff›€submits€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ1.€Did›€œthe›€œtrial›€œcourt›€œerr›€œin›€œapplying›€œthe›€œsix›€œyear›€œstatute›€œof›Ïœlimitations›€œto›€œbar›€œplaintiff's›€œsuit›€œagainst›€œthe›€œdefendant,›ÏœPearl›€œT.›€œGriffin?›ÌÌœ2.€Did›€œthe›€œtrial›€œcourt›€œerr›€œin›€œawarding›€œa›€œjudgment›€œof›Ï$238,185.20€œinstead›€œof›€œan›€œaward›€œof›€$266,185.20?ÌÌœ3.€Did›€œthe›€œtrial›€œcourt›€œabuse›€œits›€œdiscretion›€œin›€œdenying›€œreason…able›€œinterest›€œon›€œthe›€œprincipal›€œamount›€œof›€œthe›€œjudgment?ÌÌ›ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  Òœà àThe€defendant›€also€submits€four€issues€for€our€œconsideration:̛̛̜ÌÒ  ÒÒ  Òœ1.€Whether›€œthe›€œtrial›€œcourt›€œerred›€œby›€œawarding›€œa›€œjudgment›€œfor›Ï$238,182.00€œinstead›€œof›€$226,128.45?ÌÌœ2.€Whether›€œthe›€œtrial›€œcourt›€œerred›€œby›€œholding›€œthat›€œGriffin›€œand›ÏœJahn›€œnever›€œentered›€œinto›€œa›€œcontingency›€œfee›€œcontract?›ÌÌœ3.€Whether›€œappellant›€œshould›€œbe›€œcompletely›€œbarred›€œfrom›€œrecovery›Ïœbecause›€œhe›€œfailed›€œto›€œproduce›€œdetailed›€œbilling›€œrecords?›ÌÌœ4.€Whether›€œappellant's›€œclaims›€œfor›€œhours›€œaccumulated›€œprior›€œto›ÏœSeptember›€18,€1980,€œare›€œbarred›€œby›€œthe›€œsix›€œyear›€œlimitation›Ïœperiod›€œset›€œforth›€œin›€œT.C.A.›€ðð€œ28„3„109?Ì›ÌÓÓÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òà àWe€will€address€each€issue€in€the€order€raised.ÌÌœà@ àò òDISMISSAL›€OF€PEARL€GRIFFINó óÌÌà àPlaintiff's€first€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€was€in€error€œinÏapplying›€the€six„year€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€œthis€action›€againstÏPearl€T.€Griffin.€€Plaintiff€contends€that€Pearl€Griffin's€interests€wereÏintertwined€and€indistinguishable€from€those€of€William€Griffin€and€SquareÏEnterprises,€Inc.€€The€Chancellor€dismissed€the€suit€as€to€Pearl€Griffin,Ïfinding€that€there€was€no€showing€of€services€rendered€to€Mrs.€GriffinÏafter€September€1980.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€Chancellor€clarified€his€order€by€ruling€thatÏœplaintiff›€presented€no€proof€that€fee€arrangements€were€ever€discussedÏwith€Mrs.€Griffin,€the€draft€fee€arrangements€do€not€include€lines€for€herÏsignature,€and€she€was€never€sent€a€bill€for€services€at€any€time.€ÏFurthermore,€the€court€found€that€the€œplaintiff›€never€submitted€evidenceÏof€the€value€of€any€services€to€Mrs.€Griffin€as€opposed€to€the€total€ofÏthe€value€of€services€for€the€other€defendants.ÌÌà àPearl€Griffin€was€named€as€both€a€plaintiff€and€defendant€in€some€ofÏthe€cases€involved€with€œplaintiff's›€representation.€€Defendant€does€notÏdispute€that,€but€claims€that€Mrs.€Griffin's€interests€were€minor€in€theÏlitigation,€and€the€last€case€involving€her€was€decided€by€a€final€orderÏon€July€10,€1980,€entered€by€the€Chancery€Court€of€Franklin€County.€€ÏPlaintiff€€responds€by€stating€that€the€legal€work€involved€did€not€endÏwith€the€1980€final€judgment,€because€more€work€was€involved€interpretingÏthe€final€judgment.€€Indeed,€the€Chancellor€did€issue€two€letter€rulingsÏin€1981€clarifying€the€1980€judgment.€€If€that€work€was€done€on€behalf€ofÏMrs.€Griffin,€the€filing€of€this€suit€would€have€been€within€the€applica…ble€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àThe€extensive€record€on€appeal€contains€a€Rule€Docket€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Franklin€County€that€reflects€the€filing€of€two€lettersÏfrom€the€Chancellor€in€1981,€which€was€after€the€final€judgment.€€The€RuleÏDocket€also€reflects€that€a€notice€of€appeal€was€filed€in€1981.€€PlaintiffÏclaims€that€this€notice€was€filed€on€behalf€of€the€Griffins.€€œThe›€RuleÏDocket€does€not€specify€which€party€filed€the€notice€of€appeal.€€€However,Ïthe€middle€section€of€this€Court€issued€an€€opinion€that€supports€theÏentries€on€the€Rule€Docket.€€We€quote€from€that€opinion€as€follows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓOn€August€11,€1980,€the€plaintiffs€€filed€a€timely€motionÏpursuant€to€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€52.02€and€59.03€to€alter€or€amendÏthe€findings€and€judgment€of€the€court.€€The€trial€courtÏoverruled€plaintiffs'€motion€on€May€15,€1981.ÌÌOn€May€30,€1981,€plaintiffs€filed€a€second€post„judgmentÏmotion€under€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€59.03€to€alter€or€amend€the€judg…ment.€€The€plaintiffs€also€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€JuneÏ12,€1981.€€The€second€post„judgment€motion€has€yet€to€be€ruledÏon€by€the€lower€court.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒœGriffin›€v.€œLewis,›€œopinion€filed›€October€1,€1982€at€Nashville.Ì̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€evidence€from€the€Rule€Docket€and€from€the€Court€of€AppealsÏclearly€shows€that€work€was€performed€on€the€Franklin€County€ChanceryÏCourt€case€after€the€final€judgment€issued€in€1980,€and€within€the€statuteÏof€limitations€as€to€Mrs.€Griffin.€€ÌÌà àœDefendants,›€however,€œsubmit›€that€the€ruling€of€this€Court€was€thatÏthe€1980€Judgment€was€a€final€judgment.€€Apparently,€they€conclude€thatÏbecause€this€œCourt›€held€that€it€was€a€final€judgment,€we€are€to€ignore€theÏœwork€that›€was€performed€after€1980.€€We€respectfully€reject€this€reason…ing.ÌÌà àWhen€services€are€to€be€performed€over€an€extended€period€of€timeÏunder€an€express€or€œimplied›€contract€that€does€not€fix€a€term€of€employ…ment€or€a€time€when€compensation€is€to€be€paid,€the€statute€of€limitationsÏbegins€to€run€only€when€the€services€are€fully€performed€or€employment€isÏotherwise€terminated.€€òòSeeóó€òòMurray€v.€Grissimóó,€290€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€App.Ï1956).€€Under€that€rule,€clearly€the€services€involved€in€the€FranklinÏCounty€case€were€not€concluded€or€terminated€with€the€1980€judgment.€€EvenÏthough€this€court€issued€an€opinion€that€the€1980€judgment€was€final,€itÏdoes€not€negate€the€fact€that€work€was€performed€after€œ1980.€›€We€believeÏthat€in€this€context,€the€services€of€the€œplaintiff›€did€not€end€when€aÏfinal€judgment€was€reached€in€Franklin€County,€but€when€the€attorneysÏactually€ceased€working€on€the€matter.€€We€therefore€find€that€the€œevi…dence€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€the€chancellor›€œthat›€no€work€wasÏperformed€after€the€1980€final€judgment€of€the€Franklin€County€ChanceryÏCourt.€ÌÌà àœEven€though›€work€was€performed€after€1980€does€not€automaticallyÏentitle€the€œplaintiff›€to€collect€from€Mrs.€œGriffin.›€€Defendants€allegeÏthat€œplaintiff›€cannot€look€to€Mrs.€Griffin,€because€œplaintiffs›€did€notÏoffer€any€proof€to€explain€how€the€attorney€client€relationship€developedÍor€how€Mrs.€Griffin€was€involved€in€the€various€lawsuits.€€Specifically,Ïœdefendants›€œclaim›€that€"most€state€court€issues€did€not€involve€her."€€WeÏfind€this€argument€unpersuasive.ÌÌà àBy€their€own€admission,€at€least€part€of€the€representation€by€theÏœplaintiff›€involved€work€for€Mrs.€Griffin.€€More€persuasive€is€œplaintiff's›Ïargument€that€the€work€performed€for€all€parties€is€indistinguishable€asÏto€each€party,€and€was€never€contemplated€to€be€billed€on€a€piecemealÏœbasis.€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€plaintiff€was€hired€toÏperform€the€legal€services€necessary€for€the€purchase€of€the€land€inÏFranklin€and€Marion€Counties,€whatever€those€services€may€be.€ÌÌà àFinally,€as€to€this€issue,€defendant€argues€that€the€parties€contem…plated€the€exclusion€of€Mrs.€Griffin€from€any€fee€arrangement.€€We€like…wise€find€this€argument€unpersuasive.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€Mr.€Griffin,Ïwho€negotiated€the€fee€arrangement,€was€acting€as€an€agent€for€his€wife.€ÏThe€record€contains€a€proposed€fee€arrangement,€drafted€by€Mr.€Griffin'sÏpersonal€attorney,€which€states:€"Griffin€represents€that€he€has€theÏnecessary€authority€to€execute€this€Agreement€on€behalf€of€his€wife€to€theÏextent€she€may€have€an€interest€in€the€property€as€well€as€on€behalf€ofÍSquare."€€We€also€find€in€the€record€a€letter€from€Mr.€Jahn€to€Mr.€GriffinÏdated€Sept.€29,€1976,€whereby€he€sets€forth€proposals€for€the€fee€arrange…ment.€€In€the€letter,€Mr.€Jahn€states:€"After€considerable€thought€weÏpropose€the€following€to€you€òòand€Mrs.€Griffinóó."€€(Emphasis€ours).ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€entire€record€persuades€us€that€that€there€isÏsufficient€evidence€to€find€that€Mrs.€Griffin€was€liable€for€the€attorneysÏfees.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€so€preponderates.€€Consequently,€weÏreject€defendants'›€contention€that€Mr.€Griffin€was€not€the€agent€of€Mrs.ÏGriffin,€and€hold€that€the€œplaintiff›€can€look€to€the€estate€of€PearlÏGriffin€for€collection€of€the€œjudgment.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òPRINCIPAL€AMOUNT€OF€JUDGMENTó óÌÌà àPlaintiff€contends€that€the€Chancellor€erred€in€computing€the€amountÏawardedÔ'  Ô.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€$238,185.20,€based€upon€anÏexhibit€prepared€by€the€plaintiff€€reflecting€a€total€of€$266,185.20€basedÏupon€the€hours€worked.€€As€mentioned€above,€the€defendant€had€already€paidÏ$28,000€to€plaintiff.€€The€Chancellor€subtracted€that€amount€from€theÏtotal€submitted€by€the€plaintiff€to€arrive€at€the€judgment€of€$238,185.20.€ÍHowever,€the€plaintiff€had€already€subtracted€that€figure€before€arrivingÏat€$266,185.20.€€We€believe€that€the€Chancellor€was€in€error€in€subtract…ing€the€$28,000€already€paid,€and,€therefore,€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏthe€amount€of€the€judgment€should€be€increased€to€$266,185.20.ÌÌÌà@ àò òPREJUDGMENT€INTERESTó óÌÌà àThe€third€issue€raised€by€the€plaintiff€is€whether€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€in€denying€interest€on€the€principal€amount€of€theÏjudgment.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„14„123€provides€that€prejudgmentÏinterest€may€be€awarded€as€an€element€of€damages€"in€accordance€with€theÏprinciples€of€equity€at€any€rate€not€in€excess€of€the€maximum€effectiveÏrate€of€€ten€percent€(10%)€per€annum."€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSchoen€v.€J.C.€Bradford€&ÏCo.óó,€667€S.W.2d€97€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Generally,€the€rule€is€to€allowÏinterest€in€all€cases€where€the€amount€of€the€debt€is€certain€and€notÏdisputed€on€reasonable€grounds,€in€accordance€with€principles€of€equity.€ÏòòMitchell€v.€Mitchellóó,€876€S.W.2d€830€(Tenn.€1994);€òòTextile€Workers€UnionÏv.€Brookside€Mills,€Incóó.,€326€S.W.2d€671€(Tenn.€1959).€€PrejudgmentÏinterest€is€not€allowed€as€a€matter€of€right€in€Tennessee€on€unliquidatedÍclaims€for€damages.€€€òòB.F.€Myers€&€Son€of€Goodlettsville,€Inc.€v.€Evansóó,Ï612€S.W.2d€912€(Tenn.€App.€1980).›€Since€the€amount€of€the€services€œren…dered€in›€this€case€was€uncertain€and€disputed,€œwhether€to›€award€œprejudg…ment›€interest€was€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€œcourt,›€and€thatÏdecision€will€not€be€disturbed€upon€appellate€review€unless€the€recordÏindicates€a€manifest€and€palpable€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€œòòEngert›€v.ÏPeerless€Insurance€œCoóó.,›€53€Tenn.€App.€310,€382€S.W.2d€541€(1964);€òòTeagueÏBrothers,€Inc.€v.€Martin€&€Bayley,€œIncóó.,›€750€S.W.2d€152€(Tenn.€App.€œ1987);›ÏòòIn€re€Estate€of€Cooperóó,€689€S.W.2d€870€(Tenn.€App.€œ1985).›€€The€award€ofÏprejudgment€interest€as€an€element€of€damages€is€not€to€be€considered€aÏpenalty€imposed€upon€the€defendant.€€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Davisóó,€719€S.W.2d€526Ï(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€The€trial€œcourt›€declined€to€award€prejudgment€inter…est,€finding€that€neither€party€was€particularly€to€blame€for€the€longÏdelay€in€trying€this€matter,€but€emphasized€that€in€a€case€such€as€this,Ïit€is€the€attorney's€responsibility€to€reach€and€finalize€an€agreementÏover€œfees.€›€We€find€no€œabuse€of€discretion.ÌÌÓ  Óò òDEFENDANT'S›€œCOMPUTATION›€œOF›€œTHE›€œJUDGMENTó ó›ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€œdefendant›€claims€that€the€proper€calculation€of€the€judgment€wasÏ$226,128.96,€œdue€to›€œa€$13,011.00›€œcredit›€to€œplaintiff›€in€1974.€€DefendantÏclaims€that€œplaintiff's›€own€statements€sent€to€Mr.€Griffin€do€not€reflectÏa€past€due€balance€for€work€completed€in€œ€1974.€€We€have€found€that›€theÏChancellor€was€in€error€in€his€computation€of€the€judgment,€but€we€do€notÏbelieve€that€his€error€was€in€favor€of€the€œplaintiff,›€as€œdefendants›Ïallege.€€We€note,€however,€that€the€evidence€introduced€showed€thatÏœdefendants›€had€only€paid€œ$28,000.00›€in€payments,€which€would€not€includeÏthe€œ$13,000.00›€that€œdefendants›€now€claim€was€paid.€€The€Chancellor€foundÏthat€the€œdefendants›€had€only€paid€œ$28,000.00›€œfor›€legal€services,€and€we€œweÏare€unwilling€to€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderates€to€the€contrary.ÌÌÓ  Óò òCONTINGENCY›€œCONTRACTó ó›ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€œnext›€issue€raised€by€the€œdefendants›€is€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€holding€that€Mr.€Griffin€and€Jahn€&€Jahn€did€not€enter€into€aÏcontingency€fee€contract.€€œDefendants›€claim€that€despite€œa€failure€of€the›Ïparties€œto›€œsign›€a€written€contract,€a€valid€contract€œwas€neverthelessÏreached.›€€Defendant€correctly€cites€several€Tennessee€cases€containing€theÏfundamental€principles€of€contract€law,€which€we€need€not€cite€herein.€ÍHowever,€while€œdefendant's›€recitation€of€the€law€is€correct,€their€appli…cation€to€the€facts€at€hand€is€œnot.›ÌÌà àDefendants€first€argue€that€both€parties€believed€a€contingency€feeÏcontract€existed,€evidenced€by€the€fact€that€œplaintiff›€ceased€billing€Mr.ÏGriffin€on€an€hourly€rate€in€1976,€and€expressed€"extreme€displeasure"Ïover€the€settlement€of€one€of€the€cases€he€was€œhandling.›€We€believe€theÏevidence€suggests€otherwise.€€Defendants€cite€several€letters€in€theÏrecord€from€Mr.€Jahn€concerning€a€proposed€fee€arrangement.€€DefendantsÏclaim€that€these€letters€œare€evidence›€that€a€contract€was€formed,€but€thatÏthe€parties€continued€to€"bicker€about€certain€immaterial€terms."€€We€haveÏreviewed€the€correspondence€cited€to€us,€and€find€that€the€points€ofÏcontention€between€the€parties€amounts€to€more€than€simple€bickering€aboutÏimmaterial€terms.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€correspondence,€Mr.€Jahn€sent€Mr.€Griffin€a€pro…posed€œcontingency›€fee€contract€in€1977.€€Defendants€contend€that€Mr.ÏGriffin€accepted€the€proposal,€as€evidenced€by€a€letter€from€Mr.€Jahn€toÏMr.€Griffin€and€Attorney€Griffin,€dated€May€10,€1978.€€In€that€letter,€Mr.ÏJahn€wrote€"(d)uring€the€recent€hearings€Bill€advised€me€that€he€wasÍagreeable€to€the€attached€fee€contract€which€we€submitted€sometime€back,Ïother€than€he€wanted€to€be€sure€that€he€was€under€no€obligation€to€investÏfurther€in€the€Lewis€property,€or€to€retain€an€investment€in€same€if€heÏdid€not€choose€to€do€so€voluntarily."€€We€do€not€find€this€to€be€evidenceÏthat€Mr.€Griffin€had€in€fact€agreed€to€the€contract,€but€instead€evidenceÏthat€he€was€òòagreeableóó€to€the€contract,€with€certain€details€yet€to€beÏworked€out.€€This€interpretation€is€reinforced€by€the€fact€that€Mr.€JahnÏasked€Mr.€Griffin€to€reexamine€the€contract€to€see€if€it€did€œaddress›€hisÏconcerns.€€There€is€no€evidence€at€that€point€that€the€contract€wasÏaltered€in€any€way.€€Therefore,€we€believe€that€at€that€time,€Mr.€Jahn€wasÏresubmitting€his€original€offer,€rather€than€acknowledging€an€acceptanceÏby€Mr.€Griffin.€€œMr.›€Griffin€never€signed€the€original€contract€thatÏœdefendants›€claim€was€accepted.€€Rather,€the€parties€continued€to€haveÏcorrespondence€trying€to€iron€out€the€details€of€the€contract.€€In€es…sence,€we€believe€the€parties€agreed€that€a€contingency€fee€arrangementÏwas€the€appropriate€way€for€the€œplaintiff›€to€be€compensated€for€servicesÏrendered,€but€an€actual€contingency€fee€arrangement€was€never€reached.€ÏTherefore,€a€meeting€of€the€minds€never€occurred.€€As€pointed€out€by€theÏœdefendants,›€€we€will€not€uphold€an€agreement€that€is€indefinite€andÏuncertain€as€to€the€obligations€imposed€upon€the€parties.€€œòòSee›óó€òòJamestowneÍon€Signal€v.€First€Federal€Savings€&€œLoanóó,›€807€S.W.2d€œ559›€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990).ÌÌà àAs€to€œdefendants'›€contention€that€the€œplaintiff›€believed€that€theyÏwere€operating€under€a€contingency€fee€arrangement€since€they€ceasedÏhourly€billing€and€became€upset€over€the€termination€of€one€of€the€cases,Ïwe€believe€that€these€acts€were€consistent€with€the€understanding€that€theÏparties€were€attempting€to€negotiate€a€contingency€fee€arrangement,€butÏhad€yet€to€do€so.€€The€record€is€replete€with€correspondence€from€Mr.€JahnÏinsisting€that€œan›€€arrangement€be€reached.€€That€evidence€shows€that€inÏfact€Mr.€Jahn€was€not€operating€under€a€contingency€fee,€but€ratherÏanticipated€that€he€eventually€would€be.ÌÌÓ  Óò òœBILLING›€œRECORDSó ó›ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€next€issue€raised€by€œdefendants›€is€whether€the€œplaintiff›€shouldÏbe€barred€from€recovery€because€it€failed€to€produce€detailed€billingÏrecords.€€Although€œplaintiff›€was€unable€to€produce€the€billing€records€dueÏto€their€inadvertent€destruction,€it€was€able€to€produce€evidence€of€theÏtotal€amount€of€services€rendered€(4,404.4€hours,€with€622€of€those€hoursÍbeing€paid).€€œplaintiff›€presented€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Jahn€concerning€theÏtotal€amount€of€hours€he€and€his€firm€had€spent,€and€testimony€of€theÏvalue€of€those€services€by€Chattanooga€Attorney€Harry€Weill.× ƒ. ××  ×€€€TheÏChancellor€stated€that€he€was€"satisfied€that€the€hourly€amounts,€the€timeÏactually€involved€and€spent€by€the€œplaintiffs,›€is€in€fact€reasonable€andÏnecessary,"€and€that€there€was€"ample€reference€and€documentation€to€theÏnumber€of€hours€that€had€been€accrued€as€of€specific€times,€so€the€CourtÏis€satisfied€that€the€hourly€summary€that€has€been€prepared€and€introducedÏas€part€of€òòExhibit€1óó,€Tab€2,€is€in€fact€an€accurate€delineation€of€theÏamount€of€time€devoted€by€the€œplaintiff›€and€other€members€of€his€lawÏfirm."ÌÌà àSince€this€was€a€factual€determination€by€the€trial€court,€ourÏstandard€of€review€is€de€novo€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presump…tion€of€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Rule€13(d),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Proce…dure.€€We€find€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€time€claimed€to€haveÏbeen€spent€by€the€œplaintiff›€was€incorrect.€€This€issue€œis›€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òœSTATUTE›€œOF›€œLIMITATIONSó ó›ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€final€issue€raised€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€œplaintiff's›Ïœclaim›€for€hours€accumulated€prior€to€September€18,€1980€œis›€barred€by€theÏsix„year€limitation€period€as€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„109.€AsÏwe€have€previously€stated,€we€do€not€believe€that€either€party€contemplat…ed€the€services€œrendered€were›€to€be€billed€on€a€piecemeal€basis.€€There…fore,€since€no€definite€contract€was€ever€œentered€into,›€œunder€the€teach…ings€of›€òòMurray€v.€Grissimóó,€discussed€òòsupraóó,€we€hold€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitation€did€not€begin€to€run€until€all€of€the€work€ended€in€the€Frank…lin€County€Chancery€case.€€We€find€that€œplaintiff›€was€hired€to€assist€theÏœdefendants›€in€purchasing€land,€which€service€required€extensive€litiga…tion.€€Despite€the€fact€that€numerous€lawsuits€and€appeals€were€involved,Ïthe€work€performed€up€until€the€end€of€the€Franklin€County€appeal€(withÏthe€exception€of€the€work€billed€and€paid€on€an€hourly€basis)€was€continu…ous€in€nature,€a€direct€result€of€the€attempted€purchase€of€the€land,€andÏis€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitation€cited€by€œdefendants.›ÌÌà àœThe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€œmodified€to€award€a€judgment€inÏthe€amount€of€$266,185.20€to€the€plaintiffs€against€all€defendants,Ïincluding€Pearl€T.€Griffin.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmedÏin€all€other€respects.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellees€and€this€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€åßXXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌJAHN€&€JAHN,€Attorneys,€€€€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9604„CH„00167Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€HOWELL€N.€PEOPLESÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌSQUARE€ENTERPRISES,€INC.,€€€€€€€)à àMODIFIED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€INÌWILLIAM€T.€GRIFFIN€and€wife,€€€€)€€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌPEARL€T.€GRIFFIN,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àDefendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Hamilton€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€€Upon€consider…ation€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€there€was€error€in€theÏtrial€court,€however€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€can€be€modifiedÏpursuant€to€Rule€36,€T.R.A.P.€to€correct€the€error.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€to€award€a€judgment€inÏthe€amount€of€$266,185.20€to€the€plaintiffs€against€all€defendants,Ïincluding€Pearl€T.€Griffin.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmedÏin€all€other€respects.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellees€and€this€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM