ÿWPCO …# VUNa %¯ 0(µUPÝw@- 4m   0l˜ 0D 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% B‰U>¦U6äB)DCC AM† D3ÓU*0 0@?Úv~YvÓ× AOªÆù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLDÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡&ruZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular ñ+òEóö÷DøùDúûDüÓ€Úƒç"3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òOctober€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔAt€oral€argument,€counsel€for€the€Poats€stated€that€his€clients€are€notÏseeking€rescission€of€the€bills€of€sale;€likewise,€the€Poats€do€not€raise€theÏquestion€of€rescission€in€their€brief.€€Thus,€we€need€not€consider€whetherÏthat€doctrine€is€applicable€to€the€facts€before€us.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÑ7€|¢XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÙ€€ÙßR€),(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌGERALD€POATS€andà àà àà à€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9704„CH„00138ÌCECILIA€E.€POATS,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€McMINN€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌCHARLES€E.€NELSON,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€EARL€H.€HENLEY,Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à€€€)€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantsà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌBOYD€W.€VENABLE,€IIIà àà àà àJEFFREY€L.€CUNNINGHAMÌShanks€&€Blackstockà àà àà àà àCarter,€Harrod€&€CunninghamÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àAthens,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€& ÔÔ€ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔÔ€&ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àà àThis€case€arose€out€of€a€contract€for€the€sale€of€realÏestate.€€The€plaintiffs,€Gerald€Poats€and€his€wife€Cecilia€E.ÏPoats€(collectively,€ð ðthe€œPoatsðð),›€sued€Charles€E.€NelsonÏ(ð ðNelsonðð),€claiming€that€Nelson€had€breached€a€contract€for€theÏconveyance€of€two€lots€in€an€ð ðairparkðð€subdivision€with€access€toÏthe€McMinn€County€Airport.€€At€the€close€of€the€œPoatsðð›€proof,€theÏtrial€court€granted€Nelsonððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€complaintÏpursuant€to€Rule€41.02(2),€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€The€œPoats›€appealed,Ïraising€two€issues€which€present€the€following€questions€for€ourÏreview:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Where€Nelson€contracted€to€sell€the€œPoats›Ïtwo€lots€in€a€subdivision€and€the€œPoats›€paidÏfor€the€two€subdivision€lots,€would€knowledgeÏby€the€œPoats›€of€some€further€approvalÏnecessary€for€airport€access€bar€an€action€forÏbreach€of€contract,€in€light€of€the€fact€thatÍNelson€assured€the€œPoats›€that€such€approvalÏwould€be€granted€and€was€a€mere€formality?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€Nelsonððs€use€of€a€plat€map,Ïrestrictions,€and€references€to€the€LotÏnumbers€in€the€Bills€of€Sale€constitute€aÏviolation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€13„3„410,€and€as€aÏresult€of€that€violation€should€the€trialÏcourt€have€granted€such€relief€as€wasÏequitably€appropriate€under€the€circumstances?ÌÌÓÓÌNelson€raises€the€following€issues€in€his€brief:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€Chancellor€correctly€dismiss€theÏplaintiffsðð€claims€of€negligentÏmisrepresentation€or€fraudulent€inducement€toÏcontract,€when€the€truth€and€facts€of€theÏalleged€misrepresentation€were€known€to€theÏplaintiffs€prior€to€entering€into€theÏcontract?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Is€a€private€right€of€action€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€13„3„410€available€to€the€plaintiffsÏwhen€the€same€has€not€been€pled€in€theÏcomplaint€as€a€ground€for€equitable€relief?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€Are€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€barred€by€theÏdoctrine€of€merger?ÌÌà àà8 à4.€€Are€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations?ÌÌÓÓÌWe€affirm.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àThe€œPoats›€and€Nelson€became€acquainted€through€theirÏmembership€in€the€Swift€Association,€a€national€œorganization,Ïbased€in€Athens,€Tennessee,›€of€owners€of€Swift€œAirplanes.›€€At€aÏ1986€Swift€Association€convention,€Nelson,€who€was€the€presidentÏof€the€Swift€Association,€approached€the€œPoats›€about€purchasing€aÏlot€in€a€planned€subdivision€in€Athens.€€The€subdivision€was€toÏconsist€of€lots€that€were€suitable€for€the€construction€of€homesÏand€airplane€hangars.€€Each€lot€would€also€provide€access€to€theÏMcMinn€County€Airport.ÌÌà àà àIn€December,€1986,€the€œPoats›€met€with€Nelson€to€discussÏpurchasing€a€lot€in€the€subdivision.€€Nelson€showed€them€a€platÏmap,€which€was€designated€as€a€ð ðproposalðð€for€the€ð ðMcMinn€CountyÏAirpark.ðð€€On€December€30,€1986,€the€œPoats›€and€Nelson€executed€twoÏbills€of€sale,€by€which€the€œPoats›€purchased€two€lots€in€theÏð ðMcMinn€Co.€Airpark.ðð€€Mr.€Poats€testified€that,€at€the€time€ofÏthe€conveyances,€he€was€aware€that€airport€access€for€theÏsubdivision€had€not€yet€been€approved.€€Nelson,€however,€assuredÏthe€œPoats›€that€a€majority€of€the€local€county€commissionersÏsupported€his€plan,€and€that€there€would€be€little€difficulty€inÏobtaining€approval€for€access€to€the€airport.ÌÌà àà àIn€April,€1987,€the€œPoats›€received€the€warranty€deedsÏfor€the€two€lots€and€œcommenced€the›€construction€œof›€an€airplaneÏhangar€on€the€property.€€They€subsequently€sold€their€home€inÏIndiana€and€moved€to€Athens.€€As€promised,€Nelson€petitioned€theÏCounty€Commission€for€permission€to€build€his€proposed€airpark.€ÏMr.€Poats€attended€some€meetings€of€the€Commissionððs€AirportÏCommittee€with€Nelson.€€In€the€meantime,€the€œPoats›€built€a€home€onÏtheir€new€property.€€Nelson€ultimately€addressed€the€CountyÏCommission€on€September€19,€1989,€at€which€time€the€CommissionÏrefused€to€approve€airport€access€for€the€subdivision.€€NelsonÏsubsequently€presented€a€different€proposal€and€filed€complaintsÏin€the€McMinn€County€Chancery€Court€and€with€the€Federal€AviationÏAdministration,€all€of€which€proved€to€be€unsuccessful.ÌÌà àà àAs€a€result€of€the€denial€of€airport€access€to€theÏsubdivision,€the€œPoats›€could€no€longer€house€their€aircraft€in€theÏhangar€on€their€property,€since€the€expense€and€effort€involved€inÏtransporting€the€plane€to€the€airport€was€substantial.€€TheyÏinstead€were€required€to€rent€hangar€space€at€the€airport.€€TheyÏsubsequently€filed€this€action,€claiming€that€Nelson€had€breachedÏthe€bills€of€sale€by€failing€to€provide€lots€with€airport€access,Íi.e,€lots€in€an€ð ðairparkðð€subdivision.€€Arguing€that€they€wouldÏnot€have€purchased€the€subject€property€had€they€known€thatÏapproval€of€the€airpark€and€access€to€the€airport€would€be€denied,Ïthe€œPoats›€sought€damages€for€breach€of€contract,€or,€in€theÏalternative,€rescission€of€the€bills€of€saleœ× ƒ. ××  ×›.€€Following€theÏpresentation€of€the€œPoatsðð›€proof,€Nelson€moved€for€an€involuntaryÏdismissal€pursuant€to€Rule€41.02(2),€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€Nelsonððs€motion,€finding€that€the€œPoats›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à...had€shown€no€right€to€relief€in€this€causeÏin€that€[they]€knew€at€the€time€of€theÏtransactions€in€question...€that€the€proposedÏairpark€had€not€been€approved.€€The€CourtÏfurther€finds€that€while€both€the€plaintiffsÏand€the€defendant€may€have€expected€approvalÏof€the€proposed€airpark€at€an€uncertain€timeÏin€the€future,€that€such€expectation€was€not€aÏcertainty€and€that€all€parties€knew€of€theÏuncertainty€at€the€time€of€entering€into€theÏtransaction....ÌÌÓÓÌThe€trial€court€thus€dismissed€the€œPoatsðð›€complaint,€and€thisÏappeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€of€ò òòòAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrickó óóó,€we€addressedÏthe€procedures€by€which€a€trial€court€is€to€determine€whether€toÏgrant€a€Rule€41.02(2)€motion€for€involuntary€dismissal:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIf€a€motion€to€dismiss€is€made€at€the€close€ofÏPlaintiffsðð€proof€in€a€non„jury€case,€underÏT.R.C.P.€Rule€41.02(2),€the€trial€court€mustÏimpartially€weigh€and€evaluate€the€evidenceÏjust€as€though€it€were€making€findings€of€factÏand€conclusions€of€law€after€presentation€ofÏall€the€evidence.€€If€the€plaintiffððs€case€hasÏnot€been€established€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence,€the€case€should€be€dismissed€if,€onÏthe€facts€found€in€the€applicable€law,Ïplaintiff€has€shown€no€right€to€relief.€€ò òòòCityÏof€Columbia€v.€C.F.W.€Construction€Co.óóó ó,Ï557€S.W.2d€734€(Tenn.1977).ÌÌÓÓÌòòò òAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrick,ó óóó€823€S.W.2d€547,€552€(Tenn.App.€1991);Ïòòsee€also€ò òSmith€v.€Inman€Realty€Co.óóó ó,€846€S.W.2d€819,€822Ï(Tenn.App.€1992)€and€ò òòòDerryberry€v.€Hillóóó ó,€745€S.W.2d€287,€290Ï(Tenn.App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àOur€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€decision€toÏgrant€an€involuntary€dismissal€under€Rule€41.02(2)€is€inÏaccordance€with€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.€€òòò òAtkinsó óóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€552;òòò òÍIrvin€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleó óóó,€767€S.W.2d€649,€653€(Tenn.App.Ï1988);€ò òòòDerryberryó óóó,€745€S.W.2d€at€290.€€Thus,€we€are€required€toÏreview€the€record€òòde€novoóó€and€to€presume€that€the€factual€findingsÏof€the€trial€court€are€correct,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.;€òòò òAtkinsóóó ó,€823€S.W.2d€at€552;Ïò òòòIrvinóóó ó,€767€S.W.2d€at€653;€ò òòòDerryberryó óóó,€745€S.W.2d€at€290.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àWe€shall€first€address€œthe›€question€of€whether€the€trialÏcourt€properly€dismissed€the€œPoatsðð›€complaint.€€The€œPoats›€argueÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€their€claim€œbecause€theyÏknew,›€at€the€time€œof€contracting,€that›€further€œgovernmentalÏapproval›€was€necessary€to€procure€airport€access.€€They€contendÏthat€Nelsonððs€assurance€that€obtaining€such€approval€œwas›€a€mereÏformality€constitutes€a€misrepresentation€sufficient€to€give€riseÏto€an€action€for€breach€of€the€bills€of€sale.€€In€short,€the€œPoats›Ïargue€that€they€did€not€receive€what€they€had€contracted€for€„„Ïtwo€lots€in€an€airpark€subdivision,€with€access€to€the€airport.ÌÌà àà àNelson,€on€the€other€hand,€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€dismissed€the€complaint,€given€the€œPoatsðð›€knowledge€ofÍthe€uncertainty€surrounding€the€approval€of€airport€access.€ÏNelson€also€argues€that€the€œPoatsðð›€claim€is€more€properlyÏcharacterized€as€a€claim€for€misrepresentation€or€fraudulentÏinducement€to€contract.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€we€disagree€with€Nelsonððs€assessment€of€theÏnature€of€the€œPoatsðð›€claim,€we€believe€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€granted€a€dismissal€under€Rule€41.02(2),€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€ÏThe€proof€clearly€establishes€that,€at€the€time€they€entered€intoÏthe€transactions,€the€œPoats›€were€aware€that€approval€had€not€beenÏobtained€for€access€to€the€airport.€€Mr.€Poats€testified€that€whenÏhe€purchased€the€property,€he€knew€that€the€County€Commission€hadÏnot€taken€official€action€to€approve€the€airpark.€€ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€the€granting€of€access€to€the€airport€was€notÏa€certainty€at€the€time€the€œbills›€of€sale€were€executed,€but€wasÏmerely€an€event€that€the€parties€expected€would€occur€at€someÏpoint€in€the€future.€€Furthermore,€there€is€nothing€in€theÏcontracts€or€elsewhere€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€NelsonððsÏassurances€rose€to€the€level€of€a€guarantee€or€warranty.€€GivenÏthe€knowledge€of€the€parties,€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðairparkðð€in€theÏbills€of€sale€cannot€provide€the€basis€for€a€breach€of€contractÍclaim.€€The€œPoats›€were€aware€that€the€ultimate€decision€regardingÏairport€access€rested€not€with€Nelson,€but€with€the€appropriateÏgovernmental€entities.€€Having€used€his€best€efforts€to€obtainÏapproval€of€such€access,€Nelson€cannot€be€found€to€have€breachedÏthe€contracts€simply€because€the€anticipated€approval€was€neverÏgranted.€€Under€these€circumstances,€therefore,€the€œPoats›€haveÏshown€no€right€to€relief.€€ò òòòAtkinsó óóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€552.ÌÌà@ àIVÌÌà àà àThe€œPoats›€also€contend€that€Nelsonððs€use€of€aÏsubdivision€plat€map,€restrictions€and€lot€numbers€in€selling€theÏsubject€lots€constitutes€a€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€13„3„410,€whichÏprohibits€a€sale€of€landÌÌÓÓà àà8 à...by€reference€to€or€exhibition€of€or€byÏother€use€of€a€plat€of€subdivision€of€suchÏland€without€having€submitted€a€plat€of€suchÏsubdivision€to€the€regional€planningÏcommission€and€obtained€its€approval....ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€€They€argue€that€such€violation€entitles€them€to€equitableÏrelief.òòÌÌà àà àóóOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€œPoats›€did€notÏraise€this€issue€prior€to€this€appeal.€€It€is€well„establishedÏthat€issues€not€raised€at€the€trial€level€will€not€be€consideredÏfor€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€ò òòòBook„Mart€of€Florida€v.ÏNational€Book€Warehouseóóó ó,€917€S.W.2d€691,€694€(Tenn.App.€1995);Ïò òòòSparks€v.€Metropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€and€DavidsonÏCountyóóó ó,€771€S.W.2d€430,€434€(Tenn.App.€1989).€€œFor€this€reason,›€weÏœwill›€not€address€the€œPoatsðð›€second€issue.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏdismissed€the€œPoatsðð›€complaint€in€accordance€with€Rule€41.02(2),ÏTenn.R.Civ.P.€€In€light€of€this€conclusion,€it€is€not€necessaryÏthat€we€reach€the€additional€issues€raised€by€Nelson.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellants€and€their€surety.€€This€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€of€costs€assessedÏthere,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.Ì