WPC  @8}r- ^>iN6>&9š{unHKe␓F@{> 7x"'ʛ wuxgU$D\Sقָ8(#Qp[^SX&X1A|)Km]ŷᕳ74#zxSe#+#+_nM(F) ={0[R^ ʡ{m*8#}d*dv^yۄQd@89~χlW5Yh,>`(0fQQx1ͅ4ެV1! SiMuAYsja8T~ 0*滛t JeH9r߷ <%d*xjx1ަy6jC6[vh :}`pU+fNy4'5qCl``.dX {7wKk:~)4b#\ %% ^ + 07 UHN wc 4g z{    m   IINEb 0A B\\ 0y D3s D- 0K ASq 07 0D1 Au\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0c/ (.$..8Edd8    XXlTjXX jlT6- 9:-61":9E"1WEU/WE/Ur("  Z6Times New Roman Regularo=/B011C8 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 $ .!.8PAdd8    XXlWojXX(jlWo;t(;tWPAWPA^PA^r      0   PA d(3^N$ .!.8PAdd8    XXlWojXX(jlWo;t(;tWPAWPA^PA^r  VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3^N$ .!.8PAdd8    XXlWojXX(jlWo;t(;tWPAWPA^PA^r  ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK .!.8PAdd8    XXlWojXX(jlWo;t(;tWPAWPA^PA^r  __  8XXdd8  @ PI PAINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @aa$ATNASHVILLE#PA PIS#Ԉ +   September5,2003Session V ZXPA #PAXZ=#BARRYROBINSON,etal.v.DONALDBROOKS,etal.ZXPA   Z @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ` @@No.01793IIIEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  O @@*AV) ` dE< ` A  -  @@TTNo.M200300185COAR3CV#PAXZ#XXPAԀFiledNovember3,2003 #PAXX#ZXPA  +  AV) ` dE<` A      ThiscaseinvolvesthesalebyauctionofcertainrealpropertyinDavidsonCounty.Thebuyers   broughtsuitinDavidsonCountyChanceryCourtseekingspecificperformanceor,inthealternative,   damagesforbreachofcontract.Fromthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentforthe  defendants,theplaintiffbuyersappeal.Weaffirm.  s Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  b   #PAZ#XX.PAWilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S., @ andAlanE.Glenn,Sp.J.,joined. / H.AnthonyDuncan,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,BarryRobinsonandSharonRobinson.  ] C.DouglasFields,_Crossville_,Tennessee,fortheappellees,DonaldBrooksandWandaBrooks. ;  OPINION ZXXX  #XXXZ #  ZXXX  Thebuyersinthiscase,the_Robinsons_,werethesuccessfulbiddersonacertainlotofreal !  propertyofferedatauctionbytheappelleesDonaldandWandaBrooks._Colson_ԀRealty,Co. "! conductedtheauctiononSeptember28,2000.Thepartiesexecutedawrittencontractforsalewhich t#" recitedthetermsfromtheauctionincludingarequirementthatthesalebeclosedbyOctober28, c$# 2000.ThatclosingdatewasrescheduledbyagreementtoOctober31,2000.Whenthatday R% $ approached,the_Robinsons_ԀrequestedthattheclosingberescheduledtoNovember3,2000.The A&!% sellersagreed.Onthatdatethesellersappearedandexecutedtheirportionoftheclosingdocuments. 0'"& The_Robinsons_Ԁdidnotappearhavingbeenunabletoobtainsuitablefinancingforthepurchaseof (o#' theproperty.The_Robinsons_Ԁagainrequestedanewclosingdate,whichrequesttheSellersrefused. )^$(   The_Robinsons_Ԁfiledtheinstantactionseekingdamagesforbreachofthesalecontract,orin *<&* thealternative,specificperformance.ThedefendantsfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgment, ++'+ unsupportedbyanaffidavit,andallegingthatundertheundisputedfactsaspresentedinthe ,(, pleadingsandtherecord,thedefendantswereentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.The - )-V _Robinsonsresponded,arguingtheexistenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfact,namelywhetherin  lightofthewaiverofthefirstclosingdate,thedefendantshadallowedareasonabletimewithin  whichtheplaintiffscouldperform.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentforthedefendants  andRobinsonsappeal.TheRobinsonsarguethatsincethesefactualissuesexisted,summary } judgmentwasimproper. l   ATennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56MotionforSummaryJudgmentassertsthatthere J  arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. 9  Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.Theburdenofthemovingpartyistoaffirmativelyshowbyrecordthatthenon ( x movingcannotestablishanessentialelementoftheclaimasproffered,orconclusivelyestablishan  g  affirmativedefense.SeeMcCarleyv.WestQualityFoodService,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998). V  Itiswellsettledthat,whenadefendantseekssummaryjudgmentwithorwithoutsupporting E  affidavits,theMotionshouldbegrantedonlywhentheundisputedfactsshownbytherecordare 4  supportiveofbutoneconclusion,thatconclusionbeingthatthemovantisentitledtojudgmentas #  amatteroflaw.SeeCarvelv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995);Davisv.Campbell,48   S.W.3d741,745(Tenn.Ct.App.1997);McCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995).See  also,Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.02;56.04.Thegrantofsummaryjudgmentenjoysnopresumptionof  correctnessonappeal.McClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894  (Tenn.1996).Onreviewofsummaryjudgment,thisCourtevaluatestheevidenceintherecordin ~ thelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyallowingallreasonableinferencesinthenonmoving m partysfavor.Mikev.PoGroup,Inc.,937S.W.2d790,792(Tenn.1996).Inapplyingthese \ standardstothecaseatbar,thisCourtfindsthefollowingfactstobeundisputed.Thecontract K betweenthepartiescontemplatedtheoriginalclosingdateofOctober28,2000.Theclosingdate : wasmovedtwice.AttheNovember3,2000closingdateagreedtobythepartiestheRobinsons )y failedtoappearwiththeremainderofthepurchasepricedescribedinthewrittenagreement.These h arethefactsmaterialtothesaleoftherealpropertyandtheseareundisputed.Thereisnoshowing W intherecordbeforethisCourtthattheplaintiffsrequestedanythingotherthananewdatecertainfor F closingandthenfailed,forwhateverreason,tocarrythroughwiththeirpromisetoperform. 5   Bytheundisputedfactsintherecord,thereisno legaleffecttothewaivedOctober28  closingdate.TheagreementbetweenthesepartiesestablishedafinalclosingdateofNovember3,   2000.Inlightofthisundisputedmodificationoftheexistingcontract,andintheabsenceofany ! statementsbythepartiestothecontraryatthetimeofmodification,thebuyersaswellasthesellers "  wereboundtoperformaspromised.TheRobinsonsarguethatfivedaysisnota reasonabletime #! allowedforperformance.Viewingtherecordinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovantplaintiffs, n$" thisCourtfindsthattheoriginaldateofOctober28,2000waswaived,andthattheplaintiffs ]% # attemptedothermeansofobtainingthecashdueatclosingpursuanttotheexistingagreement L&!$ betweentheparties.BothpartiestwiceagreedtorescheduletheclosingafterOctober28.Onthe ;'"% lastrescheduleddate,theplaintiffshadyettoprovidecashforclosing.Thereisnoshowingthat *(z#& theplaintiffswantedtodelayclosingindefinitely.Thereislikewisenoshowingthatthedefendants )i$' hadfailedtocooperateorotherwiserefusedtoattendtheclosingdateofNovember3.Underthe *X%( circumstancessummaryjudgmentwasproper. *G&)  +6'*   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinallrespects.Costsofthisappealaretaxed  againstAppellants,forwhichexecutionmayissue.     `     h        `     h     ___________________________________ [     `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE