WPCPC ;h*o9/e5Ͷ8{wUlEo(0'%5NyOv,)ꉈ zӽL-tdd,XMy UR$u\,a4 (aB'"YYd(&U R _̣x\92j07n&_fqf!嵌/uMs5yjXjZSjГ6F7 atVx2fg$!Ytien Nr6>鱎!tDPv#TK,]×DD[Cegp|-lϗVh ^3 ˆWи ~3g/gOZ>\w|B3Y[F*޳VM$&yh#kuU.Ko&"TԚv+~K-8l%@IœMlM|9$5+M%'K`%_^?sUGNJ % 0#&  { ^ U za  V mwX4NU"N &HEnp  b ^ 0UE                0 0 0 0g 0  0b 0 0/ 0 0 0f 0 0 0m 0 0 0> 0 0 0[! 0 " 0" 0Y# 0# 0$ 0!% 0% 0]& 0' 0>' 0( 0) 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0y- 03. 02/ 07/ 0:30 0m0 0YX1 0_1 0 2 B3 073 04 D5]5 D-5 0K5 0 6 AS8c8 0)9 0D9 A: B*: D/: 0; D/= 0J= 06> 0N> 0:V? 0^? 0<? 1e*@U6@U>@U*A 1u-A 72A|A("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    \\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt/  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.wptULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5qdj/(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\Opinion Summary3|xH?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.*+ (_2623  ..123456789101112*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h - -*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKm<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis(|G2$ !.8WdXXd8         0  064Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Km<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS  d<:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Km<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  (|3 [$ !.8WdXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  <:zBottom of 7c(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?o%2A`Arial?  Sn\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 [$ !.8WdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK&  d db)1dxd<:zTop of For7e(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?o%2A`Arial?  Sn\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  b)2dxd0KS.SampleKm<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKm<6X9`(Courier NewKSn\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  12345678 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)pi) HARNEYWeatherford P.J.SwineyHeltonReinhartsChurchhillTenn.CodeAmconBurlisonInt'lTenn.Ct.AppMattinglyT.C.A S.W.GrandstaffReinhartLitton !.8Wdd8     _TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter  _RX܏3'L3'LetterT  WWW8XXdd8  @ #WW #[WINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#W[#WWԈ &   May7,2002Session L #WW<#XXW #WXX#WW%    WILLIAMJ.REINHARTandJUDITHF.REINHART%-, J v.  ^ Ѐ%  ROBERTT.KNIGHT,GLENDAKNIGHT,BOBPARKSandJOHNE. " r HARNEY,III%,#WW#XXW  6  :@@ %  %ԀAppealfromthe%  RutherfordCountyCircuitCourt%for%  % !ԀCounty 6  @@No.% ! 41560%!qԀ% " JamesL.Weatherford%" "r  @@*AV) ` dE<` A 6  @@TTNo.% # M200102195_COA_ԄR3CV%#bԀFiledDecember4,_2003_ 1 AV) ` dE<` A    %    %]  Thisappealinvolvesclaimsof#WXXT#XXWbreachofcontractforsaleofrealestateandprocurementof  breachofcontract.Afterajurytrial,thedefendantsRobertandGlendaKnightwerefoundtohave  breachedtherealestatesalescontractwiththeplaintiffsandplaintiffswereawarded$XXXX185,476.48.  Thejuryalsofoundthat#XXXX #thedefendantsBobParksandJohnHarneyprocuredthebreachofcontract x bytheKnightdefendantsandawardedplaintiffs#WXX#XXW$XXXX556,429.44#XXXXd ##WXXD #XXW.Thetrialjudgeremittedthedamage d awardagainsttheKnightsto$0.00. P   Forthereasonssetforthbelow,wereversethe_remittitur_Ԁsuggestedbythetrialcourtand < reinstatethejuryverdictof$XXXX185,476.48#XXXX# ##WXX #XXWԀagainsttheKnights.Weaffirmthejudgmentin#WXXܒ #XXWallother (x respectsandremandthismatterforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybeconsistentwiththisopinion. d j  % $   Tenn.R.App.P.%$Ԁ3AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe% % CircuitCourtisherebyreversedas   to_remittitur_,juryverdictreinstated,andaffirmedinallotherrespects.%%>  !    #WX#XX.WThomasW.Brothers,Sp.%  J% & %&% ' %'.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichD.MichaelSwiney,J., #" joined.BenH._Cantrell_,P.J.,M.S.,#WXXZ#XXWfiledadissentingopinion. t$# %  BradleyA.Maclean,StephenH.Price,andPaulE.Helton,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants, L&!% RobertT.Knight,GlendaKnight,BobParksandJohnE,Harney,III% . 8'"& %  %J.StanleyRogersandChristinaHenleyDuncan,Manchester,Tennessee,fortheappellees,William )`$( J.ReinhartandJudithF.Reinhart. )L%) +        `  ,(,   #WXXܺ#WWOPINION   WW  #WWa#XXW  Inearly1996,defendantJohnE.Harney,III#XXXXܦ#XXXXԀ("Harney")approachedplaintiffsWilliam & andJudithReinhart("Reinharts")concerningthepossiblesaleoftheirpropertyinRutherford  County.TheReinhartsenteredintoawrittenrealestatesalescontractwiththedefendants  RobertandGlendaKnight("Knights")onoraboutApril8,1996#XXXXn#XXXX.TheReinhartsinitiallydidnot   knowthatMrs.KnightandHarneybothworkedforthesamecompany,BobParksRealty.#XXXX#XXXXԀThe   partiessignedaFacilitationagreementwhichstatedthatHarneywasnottheagentofeitherparty. r  #XXXX#XXXX  PursuanttothisagreementtheReinhartsweretoconveyaportionoftheir115acretract#XXXXܲ#XXXX ^  offarmlandtotheKnights.Therealestatetobeconveyedwasdescribedas: J   0  Approximately92.8acreslocatedat6429ManchesterHighway,furtherdescribedin "r  DeedBook311,Page331inRutherfordCountyRegister'sOffice.SeeattachedExhibit ^  A.J (#(#   ExhibitAwasneverintroducedintoevidence.TheReinhartshavemovedtostrikefrom " theappellaterecordthepurportedcopiesofexhibitAthathavebeenattachedtotheappellate  briefs.TheReinhartsarguethatsincethejuryneverreceivedexhibitAasevidence,itshouldnot  beconsideredonappeal.WeagreeandgranttheMotiontoStrike.  #XXXXY#XXXX  Theonlyotherreferencetothepropertydescriptionwascontainedintheconsideration  clausewhichstated: n 0  ...Actualpurchasepricetobebasedon$4700.00(FortySevenHundredand00/100 F Dollars)peracrefromaccuratesurveytobeprovidedbySelleruponBuyersgiving 2 noticeofcontingencies,exceptforapprovalofsurvey,beingremoved...Ifsalespriceafter n surveyofacreageiscompletedisbelow$425,000.00(FourHundredTwentyFive  Z Thousandand00/1000Dollars),BuyerorSellershallhavetherighttonullifythe F ContractandallearnestmoneyshallbereturnedtotheBuyer.2(#(#   Thereforeifthesurveyprovidedrevealedthattherewerelessthan90.43acres   ($425,000/$4,700),eitherpartyhadtheoptiontoterminatetheagreement.TheKnightsnever   removedthecontingenciesandnosurveywassubmittedtothem. !  XX  Thecontractalsoprovidedfora120dayfeasibilityperiodinwhichtheKnightshad ~"  accesstothepropertytoconductsoiltestinginordertodeterminethepercolationrates.This j#! provisionstatedthat: V$" 0  Contractcontingentonbuyersobtaininghealthdepartmentapprovalsforamaximumof .&~!$ 30(3bedroomsepticsystem)sitesdistributedacrossthepropertyinamanner 'j"% satisfactorytothebuyerssubdivisionplan.(V#&(#(#   TheinitialfeasibilityperiodwasextendeduntilOctober30,1996.Percolationtestswere ).%(  performedonaportionofthepropertyindicatingthatthepropertycouldonlybesubdividedinto *&) _amaximumof1419lots.Thiswasunacceptabletothe#XXXX#XXXXKnightswhoadvisedtheReinhartson  November1,1996thattheydidnotwanttopurchasetheproperty.     TheReinhartsencounteredfinancialdifficultiesandsold87.34acres#XXXX %#XXXXԀoftheirpropertyat  auctiononDecember14,1996.Theacreagewasdeterminedbyasurveyconductedpriortothe t auctionsale.Harney,BobParks("Parks")andGaryBowmanpurchasedthepropertyatauction ` for$303,000.00.AttrialMr.Reinharttestifiedthatthelandsoldatauctionwasbasicallythe L  landintendedfortheKnightsbutthathewouldhaveprovidedadditionalacreagefromthearea 8  heretainedifneededtoprovidetheminimumacreage. $ t #XXXX9&#XXXX  Harney,ParksandGaryBowmanformedalimitedliabilitycompanythatdevelopedthe  ` landintoadevelopmentknownasChurchhillFarms,LLC.Thedevelopmentconsistedof16  L  tractsonwhich14residenceswereconstructed.Thetotalsalespriceforthelandafter  8  developmentwas$1,018,700.00. $    TheReinhartssuedtheKnightsforbreachofcontractandsuedParksandHarneyfor   procurementofthebreachofcontract.ThejuryfoundthattheKnightswereliablefordamages   fromtheirbreachofthecontractintheamountof$185,476.48.ThejuryalsofoundthatParks   andHarneywereliablefortrebledamagesfortheirprocurementofbreachofthecontractand   awardeddamagesintheamountof$556,429.44. p   ThetrialcourtremittedtheentireamountofdamagesawardedagainsttheKnights, \ concludingthatthejurycould havefoundunderthesecircumstancesthattheKnightDefendants H wouldnotbeliabletotheplaintiffsindamages.TheReinhartsacceptedtheremittiturunder 4 protest.  p   Allpartiesnowappeal.HarneyandParksassertonappealthattheycouldnotbeliable  \ forprocurementofbreachofcontractbecause(1)therewerenodamagesawardedforthe H underlyingbreachofcontractpursuanttotheremittiturand(2)theReinhartscouldnotconvey 4 theminimumacreagerequiredtherebyallowingtheKnightstherighttonullifythecontract.The   Knightsassertthatthetrialcourt'srulingonremittiturbeinterpretedtoabsolvethemofany   findingofbreachofcontractsincethespecialverdictformwasnotproper.TheReinhartsappeal  fromtheremittiturandseekreinstatementofthejuryaward.    WefindthattheReinharts'positionispersuasive.Thefindingsbyajuryshouldbeset  asideonlyifthereisnomaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict.Wefindthereismaterial l evidencetosupporttheverdictandtheawardofdamages. X      Thereviewofatrialjudge'ssuggestionofremittiturisdenovoupontherecordofthetrial D! court,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderance 0"  oftheevidenceisotherwise. See,Tenn.CodeAnn.20-10-102(b)#XXXXܺ(# XXXXԀWemustdeterminewhether #l! thetrialjudge'sactionindecreasingthejury'sawardwasjustified,aftergivingduecredittothe  $\" jury'sdecisiononthecredibilityofthewitnessesandtotheroleofthetrialjudgeasthethirteenth $H # juror. See,Fosterv.AmconIntern.,Inc.,621S.W.2d142(Tenn.1981)  %4!$     ThisCourthaspreviouslynotedthat"Appellatecourtscustomarilyconductathree-step &$"% reviewofatrialcourt'sadjustmentofajury'sdamageaward.First,weexaminethereasonsfor '#& thetrialcourt'sactionsinceadjustmentsareproperonlywhenthecourtdisagreeswiththe (#' amountoftheverdict.Burlisonv.Rose,701S.W.2dat611.Second,weexaminetheamountof )$( thesuggestedadjustmentsinceadjustmentsthat"totallydestroy"thejury'sverdictare *%) impermissible.Fosterv.AmconInt'l,Inc.,621S.W.2dat148;Guessv.Maury,726S.W.2d906, p+&* 913(Tenn.Ct.App.1986).Third,wereviewtheproofofdamagestodeterminewhetherthe  evidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sadjustment.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.  20-10-102(b)." See,Longv.Mattingly797S.W.2d889,896(Tenn.Ct.App.1990) #XXXXܦ3#XXXX    Here,thetrialjudgestatedashisreasonforsuggestingaremittiturthat: x 0  ...Ihaveconcludedthattheverdictformthatwassubmittedtothejuryandagreedupon P  byallpartieswasnotproper.< (#(# 0  IamnotsatisfiedwiththatpartofthejudgmentthatawardsjudgmentagainstRobertT. ( x Knightandwife,GlendaKnight. d(#(# 0  Ifeelthatthejuryshouldhavebeeninstructedthataperson'sliabilityinviolationof  P  T.C.A4750109forinducingthebreachofcontractisseparateanddistinctfromthe  <  plaintiff'srightofrecoveryincontact[sic]againstthebreachingparty.( (#(# 0  ...Ifeelthatifthejuryhadbeenproperlyinstructed,itwaswithintherealmofpossibility   thatthejurycouldhavefoundthattheDefendants,Knight,couldhavebreachedthe   contractandcouldhavefoundthatthePlaintiffsweredamagedbecauseofthebreach,   andcouldhavefoundunderthecircumstancesofthiscase,thattheDefendants,Knight,   wouldnotbeliabletothePlaintiffsindamages.#XXXXT9#XXXXt(#(#   Clearlythereasongivenforremittingtheawardofdamageswasthatthejuryinstructions L concerningbreachofcontractandprocurementofbreachwereimproper. 8   Wemustrespectfullydisagree.TheSpecialVerdictFormwhichwassubmittedtothe $t jurywasdevelopedbyandapprovedbyallcounsel.TheCourtreviewedthequestionswith ` counselpriortoreadingittothejurybeforethejuryretired.Allcounsel,includingcounselfor L defendants,Knight,agreedtotheSpecialVerdictForm.Nopartymadeanyobjection,request 8 forwithdrawalorrequestforrestatementofanyissue.In Williamsv.VanHersh,578S.W.2d $ 373,376(Tenn.App.1978) itwasstated:  0  Absentanobviousmiscarriageofjustice,orsituationsofextremehardshiporof  extraordinaryandcompellingcircumstances,weholdthatapartymaynot  acquiesceinthespecialissuessubmittedbythecourtandthen,afteraverdict x unfavorabletohim,objecttoaparticularquestionassubmitted.d    oB#XXXX>#XXXX  Becausethiscasedoesnotinvolveanobviousmiscarriageofjustice,asituationof <"  extremehardshiporofextraordinaryandcompellingcircumstances,thisissueclearlyshouldnot (#x! beraisedonappeal. $d"   Thefindingsofajuryshouldnotbesetasidebaseduponanimproperjuryinstructionif %P # theerrordidnotorcouldnothaveplayedamaterialroleinthejury'sdecisionmakingprocess. %