WPC (>Qzp}lQBnX*eȥqzYY9Fx4AqbLf {η~^wt O?Գ\!6CUX砪O(qN0) OAYe@#{~8dP,PhDLКHxCYt>%~e#O]I2jخ|K^>ѥh$|m8'YCu l#| r_d8w.[!6Z\؀}]iFƀAGm78ٟJ|#0cr(*WJ0tHIoބ-ܘs pAzR tWU ˭pzABgLhtWD%TH'35Y,AY51sjPo⵵ضXI[+&j`ĕYb %\U@b 0N*UN,NzU<| z2 N  N 0D L    UNd N  ^ Ew4 m#b 0 B 0 D3J D-} 0K ASH 0 0D A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)L  Z $Arrus BT Roman C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular  R$      1    _Rule10oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppealsofTennesseestates:  8  ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodify 8 theactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhaveno L precedentialvalue.WhenacaseisdecidedbyMemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated   MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany  reasoninanyunrelatedcase.5,s 9, ֨t&3|xUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0- -(|G2$ !.8RdXXd8         0   d(|3f$ !.8RdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3f$ !.8RdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Rdd8     _  R8IXXdd8  @ ZDRINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @}}$AT#RZD #NASHVILLE &   July10,2002Session L XIXR #RXXI#BRENDAR.LEHMANv.SYLVIAJ.VINESXIXR  J @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.00C872TheHonorableWaterC.Kurtz,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200101811_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly30,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XIXXXI  Plaintiffattorneysuedformerclientforbalanceofamountdueunderfeeagreement.Ina x  _nonjury_Ԁtrial,thetrialcourtfoundthattheclientowedabalanceof$4,209.00,andenteredjudgment d forplaintiffinthatamount.Theclientappeals,andwereverseandremand. P #XIXXXI##RXXIh#XIXR Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversedand d Remanded  P   #RXI#XIX.RW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_, ( J.andHollyKirby_Lillard_,J.,joined.  SylviaJ.Vines,ProSe  MelissaBlackburn,Nashville,ForAppellee,BrendaR.Lehman t d XIXXXI@@!MEMORANDUMOPINION  #  1      #XIXXXI ##RXXI# XIXR L  #RXXIx #  XIXR  Plaintiff,BrendaR.Lehman,filedacomplaintagainstdefendant,SylviaJ.Vines,alleging $"t! thatdefendantowesplaintiffabalanceof$11,593.36forlegalfeesduepursuanttoanagreement #`" betweentheparties. #L#   $8 $   Defendantsansweradmitstheattorneyclientrelationshipandtheagreementforfeesbut  deniesthatsheowestheamountplaintiffclaims.Defendantaversthatshewasnotgivenalljust  creditsforamountsthatshehadpaid.     Thecasewastriedbeforethetrialcourtwithoutajury,andtheonlywitnesseswerethe ` plaintiffandthedefendant.Theplaintifftestifiedthataftergivingthedefendantalljustcredits,the L  balancedueis$8,458.31.Thedefendanttestifiedthatshehadpaideverythingthatsheowedtothe 8  plaintiff. $ t   Variousinvoiceswereintroducedasexhibits,andthetrialcourt,usingtheamountssetout  L  ontheinvoices,determinedthatthetotalfeechargedbytheplaintiffwas$24,571.00.Thetrialcourt  8  calculatedthepaymentsmadebythedefendant,accordingtohertestimonyandtheexhibits $  introduced,andfoundatotalof$20,362.00.Takingthesefigures,thetrialcourtfoundthatthe   correctamountduewas$4,209.00.Judgmentwasaccordinglyenteredforthatamount,andthe   defendant,actingprose,hasappealed.     Defendantpresentsasingleissueforreview,asstatedinherbrief: p 8  8`    IntheCivilCourtCase.00C872,allinvoiceshavingbeen H paidinatimelymanner(pages28,29,30lines1618)Ms.Lehman, 4 Appellee,forgave$4,213.25._Judgemant_Ԁ[sic]wasgiventhat  p Appelleewasnotobligatedthisforgiveness,eventhoughan  \ agreementwasmadebetweenAppelleeandAppellantbyMs. H LehmansAppelleeschoice.(page44transcript)4` x` x    `  Ipleadthattheconditionsweremet.     Althoughtheissueisnotclearlystated,weperceivetheissuetobewhetherthetrialcourt  erredingrantingjudgmenttoplaintiff.Defendantassertsthatshemadeallofthepaymentsrequired  andthatplaintiffhadforgiven$4,213.25ofthedebt.Plaintifftestifiedthatsheagreedtoforgivethat l portionofthedebtifthedefendanthadpaidallothersumsduebyNovember15,1998.Plaintiff X  testifiedthatthedefendantdidnotmeetthatrequirementandthattherewasnoforgivenessofthe D! debt. 0"  XV XXXI  #XIX XXV)#XIXXXIOntheotherhand,defendanttestifiedthatshetimelypaidallsumsdueand,therefore,should $X" havereceivedthestipulateddiscount.WithacheckdatedNovember14,1998,defendantpaidthe $D # sumof$5,800.00,whichdefendantbelievedtobethebalanceduetoplaintiff.Itappearsfrom %0!$ plaintiffstestimonyandtheexhibitsintroducedthatplaintiffsaccountingwassomewhatconfusing &"% andresultedinseveraladmittederrors.Indeed,plaintiffscomplaintseeks$11,693.36indamages, '#& whichisnotsupportedbyanytestimonyintherecord. (#'   Defendanttestifiedthatbecauseoftheinaccuraciesintheaccount,shesoughtameetingwith |*%) theplaintifftotrytoresolvethematter,butplaintifftoldherthatshewouldhavetochargeheran h+&* hourlyrateasanattorneytodiscusstheaccount.Also,byplaintiffsownadmission,plaintiff  erroneouslyoverstatedtheamountactuallyowedbyover$7,000.00.    Plaintiffadmitsthatsheagreedtoadiscountwithdefendantifpaymentinfullwasmadeby t November15,1998.Althoughdefendantwassentseveralincorrectinvoices,sheapparentlyhad, ` atthetimeoftheNovember15deadline,paideverythingthatshebelievedsheowedtheplaintiff. L  Therefore,the$200.00paidbythedefendantapproximatelyeightdaysafterNovember15,1998 8  wouldappeartobeacorrectionratherthanalatepayment,especiallyinviewofthefactthatthe $ t defendantpaid$5,800.00onNovember14,1998.Underthesecircumstances,webelievethatthe  ` defendantsubstantiallycompliedwiththeagreementforthediscount,anditshouldhavebeen  L  granted.  8    Sincethiscasewastriedbythecourtsittingwithoutajury,wereviewthecase denovo upon   therecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt.Unlessthe   evidencepreponderatesagainstthefindings,wemustaffirm,absenterroroflaw.T.R.A.P.13(d).     Wearenotunmindfulthatwhentheissuesinacasedependonthetruthfulnessofwitnesses, p thecredibilityaccordedbythetrialcourttothewitnessstestimonywillbegivengreatweightbythe \ appellatecourt. InRe:EstateofWaltonv.Young ,950S.W.2d956,959(Tenn.1997).Inthiscase, H however,thetrialcourtapparentlydidnotconsidertheconfusioncausedbyplaintiffsaccountsand 4 thesubstantialcompliancebythedefendantwiththeagreementbetweentheparties.Fromour  p reviewoftherecordwefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingofthetrialcourt.  \   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrial 4 courtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainstthe#XIXXXIz#   appellee,BrendaR.Lehman.      `     h     ____________________________________     `     h     W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDING l    `     h     JUDGE,W.S.