WPC McEKZG\؞ 61cV~n($mMN5.ˋ$EȻ[p X->:m ϕ~ ưS7BG3 z;_+OQ&RJU17G#FvIab ځ9nL#pr BS^KQ$)u# u䑝L0 [m􊔭ejƫQ93%ShE˖\#|ٶrA~b#\^  %) 0/ U*N w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  NEb 0 B 0 D5i D- 0K ASi 0/ 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0o-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-bk1^ 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.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8Zdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Zdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Zdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Zdd8     _  Z8IXXdd8  @ FZINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#ZF #Ԉ &   September5,2002Session L XIXZ #ZXXI#NATIONSRENTOFTENNESSEE,INC.v.MELLANGE,etal.XIXZ  J  #ZXXI|#FORKLIFTSUNLIMITED,LLC,etal.v.DAVIDQ.WRIGHT,etal.XIXZ   ^ #ZXXI # SOUTHERNWOODTREATMENTCO.,INC.v. " r DAVIDQ.WRIGHT,etal.XIXZ  6  #ZXXI#XIXZ@@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforRutherfordCounty 6  @@No.99CV954,No.99CV1066,No.99MI563RobertE._Corlew_,III,Chancellor "r  @@*AV) ` dE<` A 6  @@TTNo.M200102368_COA_ԄR3CV 1 No.M200102360_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember6,_2002_  _No._ԀM200102366_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A     Vendorsofrentalequipmentfiledsuittocollectunpaidinvoicesfromthelandownerafterthe  contractorabandonedthejob.ThetrialcourtgrantedrecoverybasedupontheMechanicsand x _Materialmen_sLienStatuteandquantum_meruit_.Wereverseforinsufficientproofonthecorrect d measureofdamages.#ZXXI4#XIXZ P c Tenn.R.App.P.3asofRight#ZXXIE #XIXZ;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversedandRemanded#ZXXI #XIXZԀ  (x   #ZXXIF #XIXZEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,_Sp.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand P PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,#ZXXI #XIXZjoined. < #ZXXI #XIXZJohnT._Blankenship_,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellants,DavidQ.Wrightand_RLI_   InsuranceCompany.#ZXXI) #XIXZ !  EwingSellers,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellee,NationsRentofTennessee,Inc. #" RobertP._Gritton_,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellees,ForkliftsUnlimitedLLCandForklifts `% $ Unlimited,Inc.#ZXXI, #XIXZ L&!%   OPINION #ZXXI#XIXZ $(t#' #ZXXI#XIXZ    Thislitigationarisesoutofunpaidinvoicesforrentalequipmentusedtoerectahorsebarn, )L%) arenaandoffice.Thecontractorwhorentedtheequipmentabandonedthejob.Thevendorsofthe *8&* rentalequipmentsuedthelandowner.Thetrialjudgeawardedrecoverytobothvendors,andthe +$'+ landownerappealed. ,(,  -(- _  TheissuesforthisCourttodeterminearewhethertheproofsupportsanawardofdamages  toonevendorinquantummeruitandanawardundertheMechanicsandMaterialmensLienStatute  totheothervendor.Weconcludethattheproofastoeachclaimfailstoestablishthecorrectmeasure  ofdamages,thatbeingthefairrentalvalueoftheequipment,andthereforewereversethetrialcourt. t   Thelandowner,DavidWright,enteredintoacontractonSeptember18,1998,withMel L  Lange,acontractordoingbusinessasAmericanSteelwoodBuildings,toconstructahorseriding 8  arenaandtrainingfacility.Thecontractpricewas$203,200.00. $ t   AroundDecember18,1998,afterthelandownerhadpaidasubstantialportionofthecontract  L  price,thecontractorabandonedthejob.Thelandownertookovercompletionoftheprojectand  8  incurredcostsgreatlyinexcessofthecontractprice. $    Aroundthetimethatthecontractorleft,thelandownerdiscoveredequipmentonthejob   whichthecontractorhadrented.TherewasaforkliftandtwoscissorliftsprovidedbyForklifts   Unlimited,Inc.Therewasaforklift,generator,rebarcutter,24footaluminumextensionladder,and   apostholeaugeronthejobsiterentedfromNationsRent.OnJanuary11,1999,thelandowner p contactedFUIandNationsRent,andtheyremovedtheequipment.Thevendorsdemandedpayment \ fromthelandownerforunpaidrentalfeesincurredbythecontractor.Thelandowner,whowasnot H apartytotherentalagreementsandwhohadpaidasubstantialportionofthecontractpricetothe 4 contractor,refusedtopay.Suitwascommencedbythevendorsagainstthecontractorforbreachof  p contractandagainstthelandownerforrecoveryunderthelienstatuteandquantummeruit.  \   Defaultjudgmentswereenteredagainstthecontractor.Afteratrial,thechancellorawarded 4 recoverytoFUIinquantummeruitintheamountof$8,277.42,concludingthatthisamount   constitutedthereasonablerentalvalueoftherentalfortheequipment,and$1,457.29forrepairsto   theequipmentwhichthechancellorconcludedconstitutedthereasonablevalueofservicesrendered  byFUI.Theotherrentalvendor,NationsRent,wasawardedrecoveryof$11,550.58underthe  MechanicsandMaterialmensLiensStatute,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections66-11-101,etseq.    TheappellantshaveraisednumerousissuesregardingFUIsrecoveryinquantummeruit. X  Becauseweconcludethattheproofofquantummeruitdamagesisinsufficientandthatconclusion D! isdeterminativeoftheappeal,weaddressonlythatissue. 0"    Insupportoftheirclaimtorecoverinquantummeruit,FUIpresentedthetestimonyofMr. $X" Caragan,theownerofFUI,aswellasinvoicespreparedontherentaloftheequipment,andthe $D # rentalcontract.Basedontheprovisionsoftherentalcontract,therentaldatesandratescontained %0!$ ontheinvoices,andabillfromathirdpartyvendorfromwhomFUIhadsubleasedtwopiecesof &"% equipment,Mr.Caragantestifiedthattherentalpriceprovidedforinthecontractrepresentedthefair '#& rentalvalueoftheequipment.Additionally,inresponsetoaquestionfromthetrialjudgeaboutthe (#' outofpocketexpenseFUIhadtothethirdpartyvendor,Mr.Caraganguessedthathepaid )$(  probablyabouttenorfifteenpercentlessthetotal,maximumofafifteenpercentmarkup. |*%)  h+&*   Quantummeruitisaseparateanddistinguishablecauseofactionfrombreachofcontract.  Quantummeruitactionsareequitablesubstitutesforcontractclaims.Castelliv.Lien,910S.W.2d  420,427(Tenn.App.1995).Unlikeacontractclaimwherethereareexpresspaymentandprice  terms,quantummeruitisbasedonalegallyimpliedpromisetopay.Id.Accordingly,quantum t meruitrecoveriesarelimitedtotheactualvalueofthegoodsorservicesandarenotcalculatedbased ` oncontractprice.Id.(citingLawlerv.Zapletal,679S.W.2d950,955(Tenn.Ct.App.1984); L  WarrenBros.Co.v.MetropolitanGovtofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,540S.W.2d243,247 8  (Tenn.Ct.App.1976);Cookseyv.Shanks,23Tenn.App.595,598,136S.W.2d57,58-59(1939)). $ t   Thereasonablevalueofgoodsandservicesmaybeproveninseveralways.Theparty  L  seekingtorecoverinquantummeruitcanexplainthemethodusedtoarriveatabasefeeand  8  markup.Seeid.at428.Additionally,proofastoreasonablevaluecanbeobtainedfromother $  professionalsorexperiencedworkersinthatfield.Seeid.;Lawler,679S.W.2dat955.Butwhere   thereisnoproofintherecordofthecostofprovidingtheservicesorwhethermoneywasmadeor   lostandonlythecontractunitpriceisprovidedtheproofisnotsufficienttobaseanawardin   quantummeruit.SeeWarrenBros.,540S.W.2dat247.     WeconcludethatFUIsproofofdamagesisakintothatprovidedinWarrenBros.Thereis \ noexplanationofprofitorloss,noexplanationofhowtherentalrateswerederived,andno H testimonyofthecustoms,practicesandpricesprevailingintherentalequipmentbusiness.The 4 testimonyastothevalueoftheequipmentsubleasedfromathirdpartyvendorwasvagueand  p speculative.FUIsproofofreasonablerentalvaluewasthecontractprice.Inthatrecoveryin  \ quantummeruitcannotbebaseduponthecontractprice,wereversetheawardofthetrialcourt. H Thereisinsufficientproofofthereasonablerentalvalueoftheequipmentonwhichtobaseor 4 calculateanawardinquantummeruit.     Muchlikerecoveryinquantummeruit,thelienstatute,onwhichtheclaimfiledbyNations  Rentisbased,limitsrecoverytothe reasonablerentalvalueoftheequipment.Tenn.CodeAnn.  66-11-101(5)(1993).Thestatuteaddsthefurtherrestrictionthatrecoveryofreasonablerental  valueislimitedto theperiodofactualuse.Id.Also,thestatutemakesclearthatuseis not l determinablebythecontractforrentalunlesstheownerisapartythereto.Id.Finally,thestatute X  excludesrecoveryfortools. D!   TheproofoftherentalvalueoftheNationsRentequipmentcamefromthedeposition #l! testimonyofTedPetty,aconsultantofNationsRent.ThesolefacttestifiedtobyMr.Petty $X" concerningrentalvaluewasthatthecontractratewasthe bestbecauseitwasbasedonamonthly $D # rentalrate.Therewasalsodocumentaryproofconsistingofanoticeofnonpaymentwhich %0!$ demandedpaymentbasedupontherentalcontractamount,andthenoticeoflien,basedaswellupon &"% thetermsoftherentalcontract.Theproofofreasonablerentalvalue,therefore,wasbasedonand '#& derivedfromtherentalcontract. (#'   Asquotedabove,section6611-101(5)providesthatreasonablerentalvalueisnot |*%) determinablebythecontract.Inthattheproofofvalueinthiscasewasderivedsolelyfromthe h+&* contract,wereversetheawardbytrialjudge.Thereisinsufficientproofofareasonablerentalvalue  oftheequipmentonwhichtobaseorcalculateanawardunderthelienstatute.    Finally,theappellantsseek,inadditiontoreversaloftheawardstothevendors,thatthecase t beremanded sothatthetrialcourtcanascertain,assess,andaward...damagesindefendingthese ` lawsuitsbroughtbyAppelleesinprosecutingthewrongfulattachmentsofhisrealproperty.While L  reversalbythisCourtmakesaclaimofwrongfulattachmentpossible,thisCourtsreversalisnota 8  determinationorfindingofwrongfulattachment.Theappellantsarerequiredonremand,should $ t theyseeksuchrecovery,todemonstratetheessentialelementsofawrongfulattachmentclaim.Our  ` conclusionthattherewasinsufficientevidenceofproofofvalueunderthelienstatutesandin  L  quantummeruitdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheappellantsareentitledtorecoverforwrongful  8  attachment. $    Wethereforereversetheawardsofrecoverytothevendorsandremandthismattertothetrial   court.CostsofthisappealaretaxedequallytoappelleesFUIandNationsRent.#ZXXIn#XIXZ      `     h     ___________________________________ H    `     h     ELLENHOBBSLYLE,SPECIALJUDGE