ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 0l8 0D¤ è 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX 0dÍ U*1B)[DC„ AMÇ÷ v~ŒvÓ  BÝ D3ú 0@- AOmƼ 0D‚ D/Æ Bõ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - efDghDijkDlmÓ€wDÒ ¨¸¨d¸¸3|xw((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌJuly€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€!ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€arguable€that€the€buyers€breached€the€contract€when€they€announced€on€August€9,Ï1995€that€they€would€not€complete€the€sale.€€But€neither€party€makes€an€issue€of€the€difference€inÏthe€two€dates.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€âXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌPAUL€J.€MYER€and€à àà àà à)ÌœCAROLE›€A.€MYER,à àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9701„CH„00014ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€23547̜ـ€ÙßR€$%#A1-j|^m` ç `€€@ÿRß›MARK€œWHITACRE›,€à àà àà à)ÌGINGER€œWHITACRE›€and€FRANà àà à)ÌœHAWORTH›,€individually€and€d/b/aà à)ÌCENTURY€21€œHAWORTH›€HOMES,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌHUGH€C.€œHOWSER›,€JR.Ì2500€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€TN€37219Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppelleesÌÌLISA€M.€CARSONÌ306€Court€SquareÌFranklin,€TN€37064Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellants€Mark€œWhitacre›€and€Ginger€WhitacreÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€!„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€!XÔÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€involving€a€breach€of€a€real€estate€œcontract,›€the€appellantÏasserts€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€œamount›€of€damages€œfoundÏand›€the€award€of€prejudgment€interest.€€We€œaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€July€of€1995€the€sellers€and€buyers€executed€a€contract€for€theÏsale€of€a€house€and€lot€at€2021€Lynnwood€Drive€in€Franklin€for€$935,000.€€ClosingÏwas€set€for€August€11,€1995.€€On€August€9,€1995€the€purchasers€notified€theÏsellers€that€they€would€be€unable€to€complete€the€sale.ÌÌà àà àThe€sellers€immediately€put€the€property€back€on€the€market€butÏwere€unable€to€make€a€sale€until€June€of€1996,€when€the€property€sold€forÏ$845,500.€€In€an€action€against€the€purchasers€for€breach€of€contract,€theÏchancellor€awarded€the€sellers€$89,500€as€general€damages€for€the€breach€(plusÏspecial€damages€that€are€not€at€issue€here).€€The€court€also€awardedÏprejudgment€interest€from€the€original€closing€date€of€August€11,€1995.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€parties€agree€that€the€correct€amount€of€damages€for€the€breachÏof€a€contract€for€the€sale€of€real€estate€is€the€difference€between€the€contract€priceÏand€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€as€of€the€date€of€the€breach.€€òòYarbroughÏv.€Stilesóó,€717€S.W.2d€886€(Tenn.€App.€1986);€òòTurner€v.€Bensonóó,€672€S.W.2d€752Ï(Tenn.€1984).€€The€date€of€the€breach€is€ordinarily€the€closing€date.€€òòId.óó× ƒ& ××  ×€€œThe›Ïparties€diverge€œas€to€what€proof€is€relevant€to€the€question€of›€the€fair€market€valueÏat€the€time€of€the€œbreach.›ÌÌà àà àThis€record€shows€that€immediately€after€the€sale€fell€through€theÏsellers€had€their€agent€contact€other€prospective€buyers€œwho›€had€expressed€anÏinterest€in€the€property.€€None€of€the€prospective€buyers€responded.€€The€agentÏadvertised€the€property€and€aggressively€sought€to€market€œit,›€because€the€sellersÏhad€partially€moved€out€in€order€to€give€possession€to€the€buyers.€€The€agentððsÏefforts,€however,€failed€to€produce€a€willing€buyer€until€June€of€1996.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€agent€testified€that€in€her€opinion€the€value€of€the€house€in€JulyÏor€August€of€1995€was€œin›€a€range€of€$920,000€to€$980,000.€€She€said€that€when€aÏhouse€first€comes€on€the€market€there€is€a€short€window€of€opportunity€whenÏbuyers€compete€for€the€property,€but€that€when€the€sale€fell€through,€theÏexcitement€was€gone€and€people€were€not€as€interested€as€they€had€been.ÌÌà àà àOne€of€the€sellers€testified€that€he€thought€the€$935,000€was€a€fairÏprice€for€the€house€in€the€summer€of€1995.€€In€fact,€within€a€few€days€of€listing€theÏhouse€for€sale,€the€sellers€received€an€offer€for€$900,000.ÌÌà àà àThe€buyers€contend€that€what€the€property€sold€for€ten€months€laterÏis€irrelevant.€€Therefore,€they€argue,€the€only€evidence€in€the€record€is€that€theÏproperty€was€worth€between€$920,000€to€$980,000.€€We€disagree.€€We€think€thatÏwhat€the€property€finally€sold€for€is€some€evidence€of€its€value€at€the€time€of€theÏbreach.€€In€òòTurner€v.€Bensonóó,€672€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn.€1984),€a€case€where€theÍproperty€sold€a€year€later€for€$1,000€more€than€the€previous€contract€price,€theÏSupreme€Court€said:€ÌÓÓ€à8 àà8 àð ð[œC]onsidering›€the€resale€to€have€taken€place€onlyÏabout€one€year€after€the€breach,€and€it€being€an€arms„length€transaction,€rather€than€a€forced€sale€at€auction,Ïwe€think€it€reasonable€to€infer€that€the€fair€market€valueÏof€the€plaintiffððs€residence€at€the€time€of€the€breach€wasÏroughly€equivalent€to€the€contract€price.ððÌÓÓÌ672€S.W.2d€at€755.€€While€the€resale€price€is€not€conclusive,€as€the€sellersÏcontend,€it€is€some€evidence€of€the€value€„„€especially€where€the€property€hasÏbeen€aggressively€marketed€in€the€intervening€months€and€is€sold€in€an€arms„length€transaction.ÌÌà àà àThe€chancellorððs€finding€with€respect€to€the€value€of€the€property€atÏthe€time€of€the€breach€is€presumed€to€be€correct,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.€€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€We€canððt€say€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€that€finding.€€The€evidence€is€not€clear€eitherÏway.€€The€testimony€of€the€selling€agent€and€of€one€of€the€sellers,€whileÏcompetent,€is€certainly€not€œconclusive.›€€Their€opinions€were€œbased›€on€estimates€ofÏvalue€and€not€on€a€study€of€the€market.€€œWe€therefore›€affirm€the€chancellorððsÏfinding€of€the€difference€between€the€contract€price€and€the€value€at€the€date€ofÏthe€breach.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.Ìà@ àPrejudgment€Interestó óÌÌà àà àThe€chancellor€awarded€prejudgment€interest€at€10%€per€annum€onÏthe€net€judgment€from€the€date€of€the€œbreach.›€€The€purchasers€insist€that€theÏsellers€did€not€ask€for€prejudgment€interest€in€their€complaint€and€did€not€specifyÏprejudgment€interest€as€an€element€of€their€damages€in€answering€theÏpurchasersðð€interrogatories.€€In€addition,€they€assert€that€the€chancellor€abusedÏhis€discretion€by€awarding€prejudgment€interest€when€there€was€a€genuineÏcontroversy€over€the€amount€of€the€damages.ÌÌà àà àThe€award€of€prejudgment€interest€in€Tennessee€is€governed€byÏœstatute.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„123€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àPrejudgment€interest,€i.e.,€interest€as€an€element€of,€orÏin€the€nature€of,€damages,€as€permitted€by€the€statutoryÏand€common€laws€of€the€state€as€of€April€1,€1979,€mayÏbe€awarded€by€courts€or€juries€in€accordance€with€theÏprinciples€of€equity€at€any€rate€not€in€excess€of€aÏmaximum€effective€rate€of€ten€percent€(10%)€perÏannum€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓThe€statute€allows€prejudgment€interest€as€an€element€of€damages€ð ðto€be€allowedÏin€accordance€with€the€principles€of€equity.ðð€€òòœSchoen›€v.€œJ.C.›€Bradford€&€Co.óó,€667ÏS.W.2d€97€(Tenn.€App.€1984).ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€fact€that€prejudgment€interest€was€not€raised€inÏthe€complaint,€we€find€from€the€record€that€the€issue€was€in€fact€tried€by€consent.€ÏòòSeeóó€Rule€15.02€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.€€The€record€is€clear€that€œat›€the€beginning€of€theÏtrial,€the€plaintiffs€were€asserting€the€right€to€collect€prejudgment€interest.€€TheÏdefendantsðð€only€objection€was€on€the€merits€„„€not€on€the€fact€that€the€point€hadÏnot€been€raised€in€the€œpleadings.€€We€also€note€that€prejudgment€interest€is€notÏconsidered€special€damages€that€must€be€pled€specially.€€òòMitchell€v.€Mitchellóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€830€(Tenn.€1994).›ÌÌà àà àœWe›€think€the€question€œof€prejudgment€interest€was›€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€chancellor,€and€we€find€no€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòSee€B.F.ÏMyers€&€Son€v.€Evansóó,€612€S.W.2d€912€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€œIf€the›€difference€in€theÏcontract€price€and€the€value€was€$89,500€on€August€11,€1995,€œthe€sellers€wereÏdeprived€of€that€benefit€from›€and€after€that€date.€€In€order€to€be€made€whole,€theyÏshould€be€compensated€for€the€loss€of€use€of€that€benefit.€€We€do€not€think€theÏchancellor€abused€his€discretion.ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary.€€TaxÏthe€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ Ü ÑÑ X ÑÑ  Ñœ›