WPCv& # VUNa % 0 (UPw@- 4m  0l 0D @ 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% D3 B 0@U>U6WB)DC AMU*Fpz 6pv~v AO$ % 0D% D/*& BY&HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular DDVDPDVDӀڃ"3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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++++'dxd d("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd-3C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#0  55   YYY FILED5X December8,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.5AppellateCourtClerk  p !#d#0   $       11T.C.A.271122providesasfollows: 8 Whenitappearstoanyreviewingcourtthattheappealfromanycourtofrecordwasfrivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thecourtmay,eitheruponmotionofapartyorofitsownmotion,awardjustdamagesagainsttheappellant,whichmayincludebutneednotbelimitedto,costs,interestonthejudgment,andexpensesincurredbytheappelleeasaresultoftheappeal.  !#d#0   $       11T.C.A.4718109(a)(3)providesasfollows: 8 Ifthecourtfindsthattheuseoremploymentoftheunfairordeceptiveactorpracticewasawillfulorknowingviolationofthispart,thecourtmayawardthree(3)timestheactualdamagessustainedandmayprovidesuchotherreliefasitconsidersnecessaryandproper.  !#d#0   $       11T.C.A.4718109(e)(1)providesasfollows: 8 Uponafindingbythecourtthataprovisionofthisparthasbeenviolated,thecourtmayawardtothepersonbringingsuchactionreasonableattorneysfeesandcosts.  !#d#0   $       11Apparently,thetrialcourtsattentionwasnotcalledtoanotherunreporteddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsthatexpresslydisagreedwiththeconclusionreachedinthe Klotz case.See Whitev.Eastland ,C/ANo.01A019009CV00329,1991WL149735(CourtofAppealsatNashville,August9,1991). , !#d#0   $       11Thedefendantsdidnotseekabifurcatedhearingonpunitivedamages.See Hodges ,833S.W.2dat901. f !#d#0   $       11T.C.A.273128providesasfollows: 8 Thecourtshallalso,inallcases,where,initsopinion,completejusticecannotbehadbyreasonofsomedefectintherecord,wantofproperparties,oroversightwithoutculpablenegligence,remandthecausetothecourtbelowforfurtherproceedings,withproperdirectionstoeffectuatetheobjectsoftheorder,anduponsuchtermsasmaybedeemedright.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . 0  P 1\RA'\7,XXdd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEٜR463A1-j|&`  `@Rߛ̜THEORENJ.MURVINand  )C/ANO.03A019702CH00055MELODYS.MURVIN,   )      )  PlaintiffsAppellees,)      )      )      )v.      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT      )      )      )      )THOMASF.COFERand   )CYNTHIAH.COFER,   )      )HONORABLEHOWELLN.PEOPLES,  DefendantsAppellants.)CHANCELLORForAppellants     ForAppelleesJERRYH.SUMMERS    PAULCAMPBELLIIIJIMMYF.RODGERS,JR.   WILLIAMR.HANNAHSummers&Wyatt,P.C.   Campbell&CampbellChattanooga,Tennessee   Chattanooga,Tennessee@  OPINION11XVACATEDINPARTAFFIRMEDINPARTREMANDEDWITHINSTRUCTIONS      Susano,J.    ThisdisputearoseoutofthesaleofaresidenceinSignalMountain,Tennessee.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthesellers,ThomasF.Coferandwife,CynthiaH.Cofer,hadviolatedtheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActof1977( theAct)inconnectionwiththesaleoftheirfivebedroom,twoandahalfbathresidencetotheplaintiffs,TheorenJ.Murvinandwife,MelodyS.Murvin.TheCofersappealed,arguingthattheActdoesnotapplytothistransaction,andthattheevidencedoesnotshowthattheCofers knowinglywithheldinformationfromthe[Murvins]toconstitutefraud.  TheMurvinscontend,ontheotherhand,(1)thattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthattheCoferswillfullyandaffirmativelymisrepresentedtheconditionoftheproperty;(2)thattheActappliestothistransaction;(3)thatthedefendantscannotrelyupontheinapplicabilityoftheActbecausetheyagreedinthetrialcourtthatitwasapplicable;(4)that,eveniftheActisnotapplicabletothefactsofthiscase,thereissufficientevidenceintherecordtosustainthetrialcourtsjudgmentontheplaintiffsalternativetheoriesofrecovery;(5)thatweerredinstayingexecutionofthejudgment;and,finally,(6)thatthisappealisfrivolous,entitlingtheplaintiffstodamagespursuanttoT.C.A.271122. 7   כ@ I.StandardofReview  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoontherecord;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id.;UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaffordedthesamedeference. Campbellv.FloridaSteel ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).  OurdenovoreviewistemperedbythewellestablishedϜrulethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchcredibilitydeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).Infact,thiscourthasnotedthat 8 ...onanissuewhichhingesonwitnesscredibility,[thetrialcourt]willnotbereversedunless,otherthantheoraltestimonyofthewitnesses,thereisfoundintherecordclear,concreteandconvincingevidencetothecontrary. TennesseeValleyKaolinv.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).̜Ǜ@ II.Facts  Theplaintiffspurchasedthesubjectresidencefor$174,500.ThepurchasewasclosedonApril15,1994.TheplaintiffsfirstsawandtouredthehouseonFebruary20,1994,atwhichtimetheywerefurnishedathreepagedocumentsignedbythedefendantsentitled SellersDisclosureofConditionofProperty.TheplaintiffswereatthehouseforapproximatelyanϜhour,duringwhichtimetheydidnotnoticeanyproblems.  OnApril16,1994,theplaintiffsmovedintotheirnewresidence.Followingtheiroccupancy,rainproducedwaterleaksfromtheupstairsceilingandwaterinthebasement.Thereafter,theydiscoverednumerousstructuralandotherproblems.  TheplaintiffssuedthedefendantsonApril26,1995.Theircomplaintsought equitableremediesandlegaldamagesagainstthedefendants forfraud,intentionaland/ornegligentmisrepresentation,breachofcontract,andnegligence.AfterrecitingfactstodemonstratethetrialcourtsjurisdictionandϜvenue,thecomplaintsetsfortha factualbackground.Theremainderoftheallegationsofthecomplaintaregroupedunderthreeheadings:violationsoftheAct;commonlawfraud;andnegligentconstructionandrepair.Thecomplaintpraysfordamages,attorneysfees,andcostsundertheAct,includingtrebledamagesunderT.C.A.4718109(a)(3). 8   ׀Inthealternative,thecomplaintseekscompensatoryandpunitivedamages fordefendantsfraudulentmisrepresentations.  Thedefendantsanswer,amongotherthings,deniestheplaintiffsoperativeallegationsundertheAct.Asparticularlypertinenttooneoftheissuesbeforeusonthisappeal,thedefendantsrespondedthatthey 8 wouldshowthat[thedefendantMr.Cofer]hasnotengagedinthebusinessofaresidentialbuilderorageneralcontractor,...̛̜@ III.TrialCourtsJudgment  Thetrialcourtfoundthattheplaintiffswereentitledtocompensatorydamagesof$4,294asaresultofdamagedonetothedrivewayandfrontlawnbythedefendantsatandaboutthetimetheymovedfromthesubjectresidence.Thecourtspecificallyfoundthatthesedamages,whilecompensable, were[not]caused...bytheviolationsofthe...Act.  TurningtotheplaintiffsothercomplaintsregardingϜstructural,waterrelatedandnumerousotherdefectsanddeficiencies,thetrialcourtmadespecificfindings: 8 TheCourtfindsthattheplaintiffsrelieduponthe[defendants]disclosuredocumentsinpurchasingthehouse.Theplaintiffsmayalsohaverelieduponaninspectiontobemade...byaVeteransAdministrationinspector;however,thefactthattheymayhavealsorelieduponthatinspectiondoesnottakeawayfromthefactthat 8 inmakingthepurchase,theofferandprice,Ϝand 8 alsoinweighingtheinspectionbyaVAinspector,theywerealsoentitledtorelyuponthedisclosuresmadebythedefendants. 8 TheCourtfindsthatthedefendantsarenotengagedinthebusinessofbuildinghousesforresale,thatthehouseinquestionwasinitiallybuiltbythedefendantstobeusedastheirresidence,andtheysubsequentlydeterminedthattheywouldsellthathouseaftertheyhadcontractedtopurchaseanotherhouse. 8 TheCourtfindsthatthereweresignificantproblemswiththehouseat2908ReynardTrail,andthatthoseproblemspreexistedthesaleofthehousetotheplaintiffs,andthatthedefendantshadanobligationtodisclosecertainofthoseproblemstotheplaintiffs.ThisdutyofdisclosurearisesundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActfoundatTCA4718101andsubsequentnumbers. 8 Thedefendantsalsomadeadisclosurerequiredofpersonssellingrealestate,...andthatdisclosurewasincomplete,andatleastincertainareas,incorrect. 8 Inpertinentpart,theCourtfindsthatthedisclosurestatement...shouldhaveatleastrevealedthefactthatthehousehadneverpassedinspectionbytheBuildingInspector,thattherewereproblemswiththestairwell,andthatthehousehadnotbeenconstructedbyalicensedbuilderorcontractor,thattherehadbeenleaksintheroof,andthattheproblemsofwaterandmudinthebasementhadnotbeencured. 8 ItssignificanttonotethatbothMr.Coferandhisrealtoradmittedintheirtestimonythathefailedtodisclosemattersthatabuyerwouldwanttoknowpriortopurchaseofahouse.@ *** 8 Mr.Greer[theplaintiffsexpert]hasalsotestifiedastootherdefectsinthehomewhichheattributedinparttopoorconstruction,inparttoviolationsofbuildingcodes,inparttotheuseofimpropermaterials,andinparttopoorworkmanship.Thesemattersallcanbetracedtothefactthatanunlicensedcontractororbuilder...construct[ed]thishome.Itcanbetracedtothefactthatthehomeneverpassedafinalbuildinginspection.TheamountnecessarytocorrecttheseproblemsastestifiedbyMr.Greerwas$40,403.ThetrialcourtthenconcludedthattheactualdamagesassociatedwiththedefendantsviolationsoftheActshouldbedoubled: 8 InanactionofthisnatureundertheConsumerProtectionAct,TCA1418109providesthattheCourtmayawardtrebledamagesforaviolationoftheAct,iftheCourtfindsthattheunfairordeceptiveactorpracticewasawillfulorknowingviolationoftheAct. 8 Inthiscase,theCourtdoesfindthattherewasawillfulorknowingviolationoftheAct.Finally,thetrialcourtheldthattheplaintiffswereentitledtorecoverreasonableattorneysfeesunderT.C.A.4718109(e)(1) 9   andlatersetthosefeesat$15,669.95.  Thecourtawardedatotaljudgmentof$100,769.95,brokendownasfollows:  DamagesnotassociatedwiththeAct$4,294.00  ActualdamagesundertheAct  40,403.00  DoubledamagesundertheAct  40,403.00  AttorneysFees    򀛀15,669.95         $100,769.95         ===========ӜǛ@ IV.Ganzevoortv.Russell  Afterthiscasewastried,theSupremeCourtreleaseditsopinioninthecaseof Ganzevoortv.Russell ,949S.W.2d293(Tenn.1997).AunanimousSupremeCourtruledthattheActdoesnotapplywhen,asin Ganzevoort ,thedefendantis notinthebusinessofsellingpropertyasownersorbrokers. Id .at298.Insoholding,theCourtreliedheavilyuponthefactthattwoofthestatedpurposesoftheAct,assetforthinT.C.A.4718102(2)&(4)refer,respectively,to unfairanddeceptiveactsorpracticesintheconductofanytradeorcommerceand personsengagedinbusiness.𛀀949S.W.2dat298.(Emphasisadded.)Thecourtpointedoutthat 8 [a]lthoughthislanguagedoesnotexplicitlyexcludefromtheActsellersnotinthebusinessofsellingpropertyasownersorbrokers,areasonableconstructionisthattheyarenotincluded.TheSupremeCourt,inaffirmingtheCourtofAppealsreversalofthetrialcourtsjudgmentinfavorofthepurchasersofaresidence,specificallystatedthatitreacheda differentconclusionfromthatarrivedatinthedecisionoftheDistrictCourtinthecaseof Klotzv.Underwood ,563F.Supp.335,337(E.D.Tenn.1982),affd,709F.2d1504(6thCir.1983).See Ganzevoort ,949S.W.2dat298n.3.InholdingthattheActappliedtothesaleofaresidencebetweenahomeownerandpurchaser,thefederalcourthadstatedthatitdidnot 8 findanypersuasiveindicationintheActthatitdoesnotapplytoisolatedsalesbetweenindividuals. Id. at337. Klotz waslaterfollowedintheunreportedTennesseeCourtofAppealscaseof Edwardsv.Bruce ,C/ANo.01A019510CH00458,1996WL383294(CourtofAppealsatNashville,July10,1996).  Theplaintiffsintheinstantcasereliedattrialonthe Klotz and Edwards casesinarguingthattheActappliestotheinstantcaseeventhoughtheCoferswerenotengagedinthebusinessofsellinghouses. :   כ  Theplaintiffsarguebeforeusthattherearesignificantdifferencesbetween Ganzevoort andtheinstantcaseandthatthosedifferencesaresuchastomilitateinfavorofarulingthattheActdoesapplytotheinstantsale.TheyrelyheavilyuponthefactthatMr.Cofer,ineffect,actedashisowncontractorwhenhebuilthishousein1989:hehiredandpaidthesubcontractors,hearrangedforthepermits,and,totheextenttheconstructionwassupervised,hedidso.Theyalsopointoutthatin Ganzevoort thesellershadnoinformationregardingdefectsinthehouseotherthanasreportedtothembytheirϜrealtorandacarpenterhiredtocorrecttheproblems;thattheϜpurchasersin Ganzevoort didnotrelyonanythingthattheϜsellerssaidaboutthehouse;thatthesellersinthatcasetriedtocorrecttheproblems;thatthesellersin Ganzevoort didnotactastheirowncontractor;andthattherewerenostatementsorrepresentationsregardingtheresidencesconditioninthatcase.  Theplaintiffsalsorelyonthefollowinglanguagein Ganzevoort : 8 Brokers,agentsandotherprofessionalsellersofrealpropertyhaveknowledgeandinformationsuperiorbothinquantityandqualitytothatofanaverageresidentialpurchaserregardingfactorsandconditionsthataffectthevalueofthepropertytheyareofferingforsale. Id .at299.ThisstatementwasmadeinconnectionwiththeSupremeCourtsanalysisoftherealestateagentsliabilityinthatcase.WhileitistruethattheCofers,andparticularlyMr.Cofer,hadsuperiorknowledgeregardingtheproblemswiththeϜhouse,thisdoesnotchangethefactthatthebasicholdingof Ganzevoort thattheActdoesnotapplytoasalebyanindividualnotinthebusinessofsellinghousesapplieswithequalforcetothefactualscenariobeforeus.AswereadϜ Ganzevoort, thecriteriaforapplyingtheActisnottheextentofasellersknowledgesellersalmostalwayshavemoreknowledgeabouttheirhousesthandobuyersbutwhetherornotthesellerisengagedinthebusinessofsellinghouses.Thedefendantsin Ganzevoort werenot;theCoferswerenot.WefindandholdthattheActdoesnotapplytothesubjecttransaction.̜Ǜ@ V.WaiverandProspectiveApplication  TheplaintiffscontendthateveniftheActdoesnotapplytothistransaction,thedefendantscannotrelyuponitsinapplicabilitybecause,accordingtotheplaintiffs,thedefendantsdidnotassertthispositionattrial.Theyrelyuponthosecasesholdingthat questionsnotraisedinthetrialcourtwillnotbeentertainedonappeal. Lawrencev.Stanford ,655S.W.2d927,929(Tenn.1983).Seealso TopsBarBQ,Inc.v.Stringer ,582S.W.2d756,758(Tenn.App.1977); Devorakv.Patterson ,907S.W.2d815,818(Tenn.App.1995); Atkinsv.ϜKirkpatrick ,823S.W.2d547,551(Tenn.App.1991).  Whenthiscasewastriedbelow,bothsidesbelieved,basedonthe Klotz and Edwards cases,thattheActappliedtoacasualsaleofaresidencebetweenindividuals.Theplaintiffsassertedthisintheirtrialbrief,andcounselforthedefendantsexpressedhisviewofthethencurrentstateofthelawwhenheϜremarkedinhisopeningstatementasfollows: 8 ...Ithinkthe[plaintiffs]trialbriefinsofarasittalksaboutthelawaccuratelystatesthelawwithrespecttotheConsumerProtectionAct.ThatActhasnowbeenexpandedtocoverrealestate.Wedontquarrelwiththat.Inclosingargument,counselforthedefendantsagainstatedthat 8 [t]heConsumerProtectionActcertainlydoescoverrealestate.Thatsbeenestablished.Idontquarrelwiththat.TheplaintiffsarguethatthesestatementsreflectthatitwasthedefendantspositionbelowthattheActappliedtothetransactionbeforethecourtandthatthispositionprecludesthemfromraisinga Ganzevoort defenseinthiscase.Wedisagree.  ThedefendantsanswercontrovertedalloftheplaintiffsallegationswithrespecttotheAct.IthadtheeffectofdenyingeachandeveryelementoftheplaintiffsallegedcauseofactionundertheAct,includingtheplaintiffsallegationthattheActappliestothefactsofthiscase.IftheActdidnotapply,theplaintiffscouldnotrelyonitsprovisionstosustaintheirclaimfordamages.AlloftheelementsoftheplaintiffsallegedcauseofactionundertheActincludingitsapplicabilitywere inplayasaresultoftheissuesmadebythepleadings.Aspreviouslyindicated,theanswerspecificallystatesthatthedefendantsarenotengagedinthebusinessofsellinghousesthelinchpinoftherulingin Ganzevoort .  Wedonotunderstandcounselscommentsasawaiveroftheissuesmadeinthepleadings.Whileitistruethatbothpartiesbelieved,basedonthe Klotz and Edwards cases,thattheActapplied,wecannotfindintherecordbeforeusanyconductonthepartofthedefendantsortheircounselthatwouldprecludetheirrelianceon Ganzevoort onthisappeal.BothpartiesandϜalsothetrialjudgeproceededontheassumptionthat Klotz and Edwards expressed goodlaw. Ganzevoort ,afterthefact,heldotherwise.Theissuewassufficientlyraisedbelowtoallowthedefendantstoraiseithere.Furthermore,itisclear thatquestionsoflawarenotsubjecttostipulationbythepartiestoalawsuitandthatastipulationpurportingtostateapropositionoflawisanullity. MastAdvertising&Publishing,Inc.v.Moyers ,865S.W.2d900,902(Tenn.1993).  Astotheplaintiffsargumentthat Ganzevoort shouldbegivenprospectiveapplicationonly,wefindnothinginthatcasetosuggestthatitshouldnotapplytothefactsofthiscase.In Ganzevoort ,theSupremeCourtheld,ineffect,thattheActhasneverbeenapplicabletoacasualsaleofaresidence.ThefactthattherewasaholdingofafederaldistrictcourtandadecisionoftheCourtofAppealstothecontrarydoesnotchangethisfact.ThisisnotacasewheretheSupremeCourtchangestheϜlawandspecificallylimitsthecasestowhichitisapplicable.See,e.g., McIntyrev.Balentine ,833S.W.2d52,58(Tenn.1992).TheSupremeCourtinterpretedtheActasoriginallyenacted.ThismeansthattheinapplicabilityoftheActtoacasualsaleofaresidencehasalwaysbeenthelaweventhoughitwasonlyrecentlypronouncedauthoritativelybytheSupremeCourt.  WefindandholdthattheissueofwhethertheActϜappliestothefactsofthiscasewasbeforethelowercourt;iscontrolledby Ganzevoort; andisproperlybeforeus.̜Ǜ@ VI.BasicDamageAward  HavingdeterminedthatnoportionofthejudgmentbelowcanbepredicatedonafindingthatthesecasualsellersviolatedtheAct,wenowturntotheplaintiffsargumentthatthedamagesfoundtobeassociatedwiththeActcanbesustainedononeormoreoftheplaintiffsalternatetheories.WeagreethatthebasicdamageawardassociatedwithallegedviolationsoftheActcanbeupheldontheplaintiffsalternativetheoryofcommonlawϜfraud.  TheelementsofafraudclaimaresetforthinthecaseϜof Stacksv.Saunders ,812S.W.2d587(Tenn.App.1990):Ӝ 8 Thebasicelementsforafraudactionare:(1)anintentionalmisrepresentationwithregardtoamaterialfact,(citationomitted);(2)knowledgeoftherepresentationfalsitythattherepresentationwasmade knowinglyor withoutbeliefinitstruth,or recklesslywithoutregardtoitstruthorfalsity,(citationomitted);(3)thattheplaintiffreasonablyreliedonthemisrepresentationandsuffereddamage,(citationsomitted);and(4)thatthemisrepresentationrelatestoanexistingorpastfact,(citationomitted),... Id .at592.Thissubjectisfurtheraddressedinthecaseof Lonningv.JimWalterHomes,Inc. ,725S.W.2d682(Tenn.App.1986): 8 Forconcealmentornondisclosuretoconstitutefraud,thepartychargedwithfraudmusthaveknowledgeofanexistingfactorconditionandadutytodisclosethefactorcondition.(Citationomitted).Apartytoacontracthasadutytodisclosetotheotherpartyanymaterialfactaffectingtheessenceofthesubjectmatterofthecontract,unlessordinarydiligencewouldhaverevealedtheundisclosedfact. Id .at685.Ӝ̛  Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtfoundthatthedefendants fail[ed]toadequatelyandcompletelydisclosefactorsthatwereofimportancetothepurchaserofahouse,informationwhichwasknowntothedefendantsandnoteasilyorreadilyobtainablebytheplaintiffs.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthedisclosurestatementsignedbythedefendants wasincomplete,andatleastincertainareas,incorrect.Thecourtfoundthatthesemisrepresentationsweremadewillfullyorknowingly.  Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthesefindings.WhilethelowercourtdidnotopenlyquestionthecredibilityofMr.Cofer,itsfindingsoffactnecessarilyinvolveafindingthathelackedcredibility.Aspreviouslyindicated,thiscredibilitydeterminationisentitledtogreatweightonthisappealasweevaluatethepreponderanceoftheevidence.See TennesseeValleyKaolin ,526S.W.2dat490.  Thecourtfoundandtheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstsuchafindingthatthedefendantsfailedtorevealtothepurchasersthatthehousehadfailedthreeinspectionsbythebuildinginspector,eventhoughthedefendantMr.CoferϜacknowledgedthatthiswassomethinginwhichapurchaserwouldbeϜinterested.ThisfactwasnotreflectedonthedisclosureϜstatement,despitethefactthestatementhadthefollowingϜrequestforinformation:Ӝ 8 Pleasestateanyotherfactsorinformationrelatingtothispropertythatwouldbeofconcerntoabuyer.̛̛̜Furthermore,therewasanabundanceofprooffromwhichthetrialcourtcouldanddidfindthatthedisclosurestatementfailedtorevealaproblemwithwaterinthebasementandleaksintheroof.Whilethedisclosurestatementdiddisclosepriorwaterproblemsinthebasement,italsoreflectedthatthoseproblemshadbeen correctedby[a]sumppump.Whenaskedonthestatementiftheroof leak[ed]orhasitpreviouslyleaked,thedefendantscheckedthe Noline.Therewasevidence,andreasonableinferencesthatcouldbedrawnfromthatevidence,fromwhichonecouldreasonablyconcludethatbothoftheserepresentationswerefalseandknownbythedefendantstobefalsewhenmade.  Thedisclosurestatementreflectsthattherehadbeenno settling,flooding,drainage,gradingorsoilproblems.Theplaintiffsexperttestifiedtoanumberofproblemsfallingwithintheseareas.  Thetrialcourtfoundthatmanyoftheproblemstestifiedtobytheplaintiffsexpertcould betracedtothefactthatanunlicensedcontractororbuilder...construct[ed]thishome[andthat]thehomeneverpassedafinalbuildingϜinspection.Ifthedefendantshadmadeafullandcompletedisclosure,itislogicaltoassumeandtheplaintiffssotestifiedthattheplaintiffswouldnothavepurchasedtheresidenceandwouldnothavesustainedthevariousdamagesclearlyshownbytheevidenceinthiscase.  Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstanawardofdamagesof$40,403basedonthedefendantsfraudulentmisrepresentations.Forthisreason,weapprovethisportionofthejudgment.WecanaffirmatrialcourtsjudgmentiftheresultiscorrecteventhoughwedisagreewiththelowercourtsϜreasoning.Rule36(a),T.R.A.P.Seealso Kellyv.Kelly ,679S.W.2d458,460(Tenn.App.1984).  Astothetrialcourtsfindingthattheplaintiffsareentitledtorecoveranadditionalamountof$4,294becauseofdamagedonebythedefendantstothedrivewayandfrontyardatandaboutthetimethedefendantsvacatedtheproperty,thedefendantsintheirbriefconcedetheirliabilityforthesedamages.  Itresultsthatthebasicdamageawardof$44,697isaffirmed.@ VII.CantheDoublingoftheAwardbe@ SustainedasPunitiveDamages?  Theplaintiffsarguethat,evenifthedoubledamagesawardcannotbesustainedpursuanttotheauthorityofT.C.A.4718109(a)(3),itcanbeupheldaspunitivedamages.Aspreviouslyindicated,theplaintiffssoughtpunitivedamagesontheiralternativetheoryofcommonlawfraud.  Itistruethatthetrialcourtspecificallyfounda willfulorknowingviolationoftheAct,𛀜ascontemplatedinT.C.A.4718109(a)(3).While willfulisnotdefinedintheAct, knowingis.Itisdefinedas 8 ...actualawarenessofthefalsityordeception,butactualawarenessmaybeinferredwhereobjectivemanifestationsindicatethatareasonablepersonwouldhaveknownorwouldhavehadreasontoknowofthefalsityordeception.T.C.A.4718103(6).Theplaintiffsarguethatthisfindingnecessarilymeansthatthecourtfoundfactsthatwouldjustifyanawardofpunitivedamages.Wedonotbelievethatthisisnecessarilytrue.  InTennessee,itisclearthatpunitivedamagesare restrict[ed]...tocasesinvolvingonlythemostegregiousofwrongs. Hodgesv.S.C.Toof&Co .,833S.W.2d896,901(Tenn.1992).Acourtmay awardpunitivedamagesonlyifitfindsadefendanthasactedeither(1)intentionally,(2)fraudulently,(3)maliciously,or(4)recklessly. Id .Suchanawardisonlyappropriatewhenthenecessaryconducthasbeenshown byclearandconvincingevidence. Id.   WecannotsaythatthetrialcourtsfindingsunderT.C.A.4718109(a)(3)satisfythequalityorquantityofproofrequiredunder Hodges tosustainanawardofpunitivedamages.Sincetherewasnoevidenceofthedefendantsfinancialcondition,thetrialcourtwasnotinapositiontoevaluatethisaspectofthepunitivedamagesinquiry.Under Hodges ,generallyspeaking,thisisonefactorthatafactfindershouldconsiderwhenarequestforpunitivedamageshasbeenmade. Id .Furthermore,thetrialcourtdidnotindicatewhetheritfound,by clearandconvincingevidence,theegregiousconductrequiredby Hodges .Wecannotextrapolatethetrialcourtsfindingsregardingthedefendantsintentionalmisrepresentationsintotherequisitefindingofegregiousconductcontemplatedby Hodges .  Accordingly,wevacatesomuchofthetrialcourtsjudgmentasaddsadditionaldamagesof$40,403underT.C.A.4718109(a)(3).SincetheActdoesnotapplyandsincewecannotsaythatthereisafactualpredicateforpunitivedamages,wecannotsustainthisportionofthetrialcourtsaward.  Whilethetrialcourtdidnotmakefindingsthatwouldsustainanawardofpunitivedamages,werecognizethatitdidmakefindingsthatclearlyreflectitsdeterminationthatthedefendantswereguiltyofintentionalmisrepresentations.InviewofthisfindingandinviewofthefactthatthepartiesandthetrialcourtwereunderstandablyfocusedontheAct,weholdthatitisappropriatetoremandthiscasetothetrialcourttoholdahearingtodeterminewhethertheplaintiffsareentitledtopunitivedamages.Werecognizethatitwastheplaintiffsburdenasapartoftheirproofinchieftopresentevidenceofthedefendantsfinancialcondition; ;   ׀butjustaswearenotinclinedtopenalizethedefendantsfortryingthiscaseasiftheActapplied,wedonotbelievethattheplaintiffsshouldbepenalizedfordoingthesamething.Wefindandholdthatjusticerequiresaremandforahearingontheissueofpunitivedamages.SeeT.C.A.273128. <   כIndoingso,weexpressnoopinionastowhethertheplaintiffsareentitledtopunitivedamages.Thisdeterminationmustbemadeinthefirstinstancebythetrialcourt.@ VIII.AttorneysFees  ThetrialcourtsawardofattorneysfeeswasbaseduponafindingthatthedefendantsviolatedtheAct.SincetheActisnotapplicabletothistransaction,thatawardcannotstand.Suchfeesarenotrecoverableascompensatorydamagesunderanyoftheplaintiffsalternativetheories.@ IX.OtherIssuesRaisedbyPlaintiffs  Inviewofourdecisioninthiscase,wedonotfinditnecessarytoreachtheplaintiffsissueregardingourstayofϜexecution.Wefindnomeritintheplaintiffscontentionthatthisappealwasfrivolous.@ X.Conclusion  Somuchofthetrialcourtsjudgmentasawardsattorneysfeesof$15,669.95anddoubledamagesundertheActisherebyvacated.Theremainderofthejudgmentreflectinganawardof$44,697andtaxingcostsbelowisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfortheentryofanorderreflectingthismodificationofthejudgment,andfortheholdingofanotherhearingtodeterminewhethertheplaintiffsareentitledtopunitivedamages.Exercisingourdiscretion,wetaxthecostsonappealtotheappellantsandtheirsurety.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:_______________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J._______________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.