WPCD= nsGۓ~g&_I®񼆙&#D%mMPNOrDL ;Y m576j0HN6]t9MC<󚉬x-`T%$Ϲ(+j *zfe:U5%2JbKX!,DM뼋x<0Yh)8I07PrYaYqNe.$~B~(".Oz<#dr_=\4U%q8{'X/ i:^QƠWH_*Y?I.d]~!/ob?ap:ug& 0v& 0`' 0`{' 0`' 0`;( 0`( 08( 03) 02* 07* 0:3+ 0Ym+ 0_+ 0 %, 0j/- 0. B*0 D/G0 0v0 D/1 0)2 062 0-3 0:54 0^o4 0<4 1e 5 0n5U6Y6U>6U*6 B6 1u7 07 D5-8 D-b8 0K8 728 AS 9_9 0%: 0D: A ; 0c;< 0e<-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0  Dr.Starkweatherremittitur&spondylolisthesis DepoLillardHighers W.S. P.J.CantrellPemerton GoodlettsvillePemertonsSoloman COA Exh T.E. T.R.DevoeCapps S.W.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?  ST\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?  ST\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2$ !.8dXXd8         0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|3G$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  Wi)^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(;3$2#  0  .3  0  A, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#BV2Quick A.c  .0 c !.8dd8     _  8DXXdd8  @ LINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#L #Ԉ &   April3,2002Session L XDX #XXD#JAMESR.PEMERTONandDEBORAHW.PEMERTON J v.  ^ BEAUTYWALLPAINTINGXDX  " r @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty " r @@No.99C2258CarolSoloman,Judge ^  @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.M200101638COAR3CVFiledDecember11,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A     Thisisabreachofwarrantycase.Theplaintiffhomeownerscontractedwiththedefendantpainter   tohavetheirhomepainted.Thecontractincludedaoneyearwarrantyonlaborandmaterials.After  theworkwascompleted,thepaintbegantopeel,blister,andseparatefromthewoodsiding.The x homeownerssuedthepainterunderthewarranty.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthehomeowners d complainedoftheproblemswithintheoneyearwarrantyperiod.Thetrialcourtawardedthe P homeownersdamagesfortheamountpaidtothepainter,substantialdamagesforrepairs,and < discretionarycosts.Onappeal,thepainterarguedthatthetrialjudgefailedtoproperlyunderstand (x thetestimonyofthepartiesregardingthepaintersactionsafterbeinginformedofthepaint d problems,andtherefore,improperlydiscreditedthepainterstestimonywithregardtotheissueof P thedatethehomeownerstoldthepainteraboutthedefectivework.Weaffirm,findingthatthe < defendantpainterfailedtoshowanybasisforreversingthecredibilitydeterminationofthetrial ( court.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed      #XD#XDX.HollyK.Lillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., t"! W.S.,andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. `#" ThomasA.Storey,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,BeautyWallPainting. 8% $ LarryD.CantrellandJimmyA.Duncan,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,JamesR.Pemerton '`"& andDeborahW.Pemerton. 'L#'   OPINION #XXD #XDX )$%) #XXD #XDX    #XXD2 #XDXInOctober1995,thePlaintiff/AppelleesJamesR.PemertonandDeborahW.Pemerton +&+ (collectively, thePemertons)enteredintoacontractwiththeDefendant/AppellantBeautyWall ,', Painting( BeautyWall),topainttheirhomeinDavidsonCounty,Tennessee.BeautyWall -(- _warrantedtothePemertonsthelaborandmaterialssuppliedonthisjobforaperiodofoneyear.The  paintjobwascompletedbytheendofOctober1995.    Inthespringof1996,thepaintstartedpeeling,blistering,andseparatingoffthepainted t surfacesofthehome.Thus,thepaintdefectsoccurredwithintheoneyearwarrantytimeperiod. ` ThePemertonsassertthatBeautyWallwasnotifiedoftheproblemsatthattime.BeautyWall, L  however,allegedthatitwasnotnotifiedofanyproblemswiththepaintuntilJanuaryorFebruary 8  1997,whichwasoutsidetheoneyearwarrantyperiod.BeautyWallrefusedtocompensatethe $ t Pemertonsorrepairthedefectiveareasonthehouse.  `   OnAugust12,1999,thePemertonsfiledthislawsuitagainstBeautyWall.Inthecomplaint,  8  thePemertonsallegedbreachofwarrantyoflaborandmaterials,breachofwarrantyofthepaintfor $  aspecificpurpose,andbreachofwarrantyofmerchantability.ThePemertonsassertedthatthe   damagetothehomeoccurredwithinthetermoftheoneyearexpresswarrantyincludedinthe   contract.Theysoughtreimbursementforthelossofthepaintcoatingontheirhome,replacement   costfortheentirewoodstructureonthehouse,cleanupcosts,andadditionalgeneralrelief.Inits   responsivepleading,BeautyWallassertedthatitexercisedordinarycareatalltimes,thatitconsulted p aDevoePaintexperttodeterminethecorrectpaintandapplicationmethodtobeusedonthehome, \ andthatthepeelingpaintwascausedbywaterbehindthewoodsiding.BeautyWalldeniedusing H defectivepaint,andclaimedthatthePemertonscomplaintwasmadeoutsidetheoneyearwarranty 4 period.  p   OnMarch23,2001,BeautyWallmovedforsummaryjudgment.OnApril16,2001,thetrial H courtgrantedBeautyWallpartialsummaryjudgmentwithregardtothebreachofwarrantyofpaint 4 foraspecificpurposeandbreachofwarrantyofmerchantability,asthePemertonsdidnotoppose   themotiononthoseissues.Followingthegrantingofpartialsummaryjudgment,theallegationof   breachofwarrantyoflaborandmaterialsremainedtobeadjudicated.     OnMay15,2001,abenchtrialwasheldonthepartiesremainingarguments.Atthetrial,  thePemertonstestifiedthat,inthespringof1996,theyinformedTomP.Vest,Jr.( Vest),the l ownerofBeautyWall,ofthedefectivepaintjob.Mrs.PemertonindicatedthatafterVestwas X  notifiedoftheproblemwiththepaintjobhecametothePemertonshometoseetheproblem.In D! contrast,VesttestifiedthathewasnotmadeawareofthedeficientworkuntilJanuaryorFebruary 0"  1997.VestindicatedthathevisitedthePemertonhomeafterthePemertonsinformedhimofthe #l! defects,andafterwardstookMr.Pemertontothepaintcompanytofileacomplaint.ThePemertons $X" alsoprofferedthetestimonyofapaintexpert,RandyGregory,regardingtherepaircostsofthe $D # defectivepaint.Gregoryestimatedthatitwouldcost$72,525toremovethepaintfromthe %0!$ Pemertonshome.ThePemertonsprofferedtestimonyattrialfromanotherexpertwitness,Dr.Jan &"% Gooch,regardingthecauseofthepaintingdefects.Goochopinedthatthedamagewascausedby '#& impropersurfacepreparation.Specifically,thewoodretainedwaterafteritwaspressurewashed, (#'  andrisingtemperaturescreatedvaporpressurethatforcedthepainttoseparatefromthesurface.  )$(   Attheconclusionofthetrial,thetrialcourtissuedanoralruling.Inheroralremarks,the   trialjudgeindicatedthatshewaspuzzledastowhyVest,uponlearningofthePemertonscomplaint,  wouldtakeMr.Pemertondirectlytothepaintcompany,insteadoffirstvisitingthePemertonshome  toinspectthedamage.ThetrialcourtfoundinfavorofthePemertons,andawardedthem t compensatorydamagesof$5,465,thecontractpricefortheworkperformedbyBeautyWall,plus ` $72,525incollateraldamagesasaresultofthebreachofcontract,foratotaldamageawardof L  $77,990.ThePemertonslatersought$6,004.93indiscretionarycosts,ofwhichtheywereawarded 8  $4,350.05.Fromthisjudgment,BeautyWallappeals. $ t   Onappeal,BeautyWallarguesthat,althoughthePemertonsandVesttestifiedthatVests  L  firstactafterlearningofthedefectivepaintjobwastovisitthePemertonhometoexaminethe  8  problem,thetrialcourtmisunderstoodthetestimonyofVestandthePemertons,apparently $  understandingthatWestfirsttookMr.Pemertontothepaintcompanytolodgeacomplaint.Beauty   Wallassertsthatthetrialcourtsmisinterpretationofthistestimonytainteditsviewoftheremainder   ofVeststestimony,especiallyVeststestimonyregardingthetimeframeinwhichthePemertons   firstcomplainedaboutthepaintingdefects.Hence,BeautyWallclaims,ifthetrialcourthad   properlyunderstoodthetestimonyofthePemertonsandVestregardingVestsactionsafterhewas p toldofthedefectivework,thetrialcourtwouldhavecreditedVestsunrelatedtestimonythatthe \ Pemertonscomplaintwasmadeafterexpirationofthewarrantyperiod.HadVeststestimonybeen H creditedonthisissue,BeautyWallwouldnothavebeenheldliable. 4   Wereviewthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsdenovoaccompaniedbyapresumptionof  \ correctnessunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. , H 919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Becausethetrialjudgeisinthebest 4 positiontoweighthecredibilityofthewitnesseswegive greatweighttoatrialcourtsfactual   findingsthatrestondeterminationsofcredibility. Rawlingsv.TheJohnHancockMut.LifeIns.   Co. ,45S.W.3d291,296(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(citationsomitted).Therefore,thedeterminations  ofthetrialcourtonissuesofcredibilityare bindingontheappellatecourtunlessfromotherreal  evidencetheappellatecourtiscompelledtoconcludetothecontrary. Reedv.AlamoRentACar,  Inc. ,4S.W.3d677,683(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(quoting Hudsonv.Capps ,651S.W.2d243,246 l (Tenn.Ct.App.1983))  .Thetrialcourtslegalconclusionsarerevieweddenovowithno X  presumptionofcorrectness. Campbell ,919S.W.2dat35. D!   Giventhedeferencewearerequiredonappealtoaccordtothetrialcourtsdeterminations #l! ofcredibility,wecannotagreethatanymisunderstandingofthetrialjudgeonaperipheralissue, $X" suchaswhetherVestvisitedthePemertonhomefirst,vitiatesthetrialcourtscreditingofthe $D # Pemertonsassertionthattheircomplaintwasmadewithinthewarrantyperiod.Thetrialjudge %0!$ heardthepresentationofthepartiesproofinitsentirety,andusedherjudgmenttomakecredibility &"% determinations,whichmuststandonappealunlessrealevidencecompelsustoconcludeotherwise. '#& Consideringtheevidenceasawhole,wedeclinetoreversethetrialcourtsfactualfindingonthis (#'  issue. )$(   Althoughthedamageawardfarexceedstheoriginalpriceofthecontract,BeautyWalls   contractwiththePemertonsincludednolimitationondamages.Inaddition,BeautyWallpresented  notestimonytocontrovertthePemertonsevidenceregardingthecosttorepairthehome.Under  Tennesseelaw,suchconsequentialdamagesarepermitted. SeeSmithv.Am.Gen.Corp. ,No.87 t 79II,1987Tenn.App.LEXIS2851,at*18(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.5,1987); W.UnionTel.Co.v. ` Green ,281S.W.778,782(Tenn.1925).Underallofthesecircumstances,wemustaffirmthetrial L  courtsawardofdamages. 8    Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtotheappellant,BeautyWall  ` Painting,anditssurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  L      `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     HOLLYK.LILLARD,JUDGE