WPC  d?`ahp$r7DmwM~͔;`CxY ([O17.q0,' *+zwXl`D@1 wu0daiն =*q9CR݉o/4zOa(V:\6:Ole@4-i^dj0sEpsw'j[wG (Cp㘰FluPw:c`d&/I',")EQߪ >G߄W =y>iUExCCE_hI@Ԕ}O}B`5V'SK‰HlPKjk$0HOJ}NًzQ) Ow3FNXb4)E/;40/7K!|5CMhǪJ΁` #%Pד82(Sj,CKF4b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;=8Eb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K AS` 0y 0D AaHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0)L (`$.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(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  R{$      1  }  _Section4718109(a)(3)oftheTennesseeCodeprovidesthattrebledamagesmaybeawardedwhenthecourt  findsaknowingorwillfuluseofanunfairordeceptivetradepractice. See Tenn.CodeAnn.4718109(a)(3)(1995). . R{$      2  }  _AttorneysfeesmaybeawardedpursuanttotheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActinanappropriatecase.   See Tenn.CodeAnn.4718109(e)(1)(1995)( [_u]pon_Ԁafindingbythecourtthataprovisionofthisparthasbeen t violated,thecourtmayawardtothepersonbringingsuchactionreasonableattorneysfeesandcosts.).- -(|G2{$ !.8Fdd8         0  } d(|3G$ !.8Fdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Fdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Fdd8     _  F8 XXdd8  @ [FINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#F[ #Ԉ &   June2000Session L X XF #FXX #KEN_SHUMAN_v.JAMES_PARKHURST_Ԁd/b/a_PARKHURST_ԀHOME J IMPROVEMENTX XF   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforSumnerCounty  ^ @@No.17825CCarol_Soloman_,SpecialJudge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199902043_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust31,_2000_   AV) ` dE<` A      X XXX James_Parkhurst_Ԁd/b/a_Parkhurst_ԀHomeImprovementappealsthetrialcourtsfinaljudgment d awardingKen_Shuman_Ԁ$8,021.14inactualdamagesforbreachoforalconstructioncontractand P $2,406.33inattorneysfeesbaseduponafindingoffraudinviolationoftheTennesseeConsumer < ProtectionAct._Parkhurst_Ԁraisedtwoissuesonappeal,contendingthatthedamagesawardedinthis (x homeconstructiondisputewerenotlegallywarrantedandthatthetrialcourterredinfindingfraud, d thereforejustifyinganawardforattorneysfeesundertheAct.Weconcludethat_Shuman_Ԁpresented P sufficientprooftofindaviolationoftheActandtosupporthisclaimfordamagesandforattorneys < fees.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment. (  #X XXX g##FXX #X XF[ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and  Remanded     #FX ; #X X.FDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK. t  _Lillard_,_J.J._,joined. `!  JohnR.Phillips,Jr.,_Gallatin_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,James_Parkhurst_Ԁd/b/a_Parkhurst_ԀHome 8#" Improvement. $$t# C.TraceyParks,_Gallatin_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Ken_Shuman_. %L!%   OPINION #FXX ( #X XF '$#' #FXX #X XFX XXX      Mr._Shuman_ԀenteredintoanoralagreementwithMr._Parkhurst_Ԁforconstructionofa )$) 24'x32'twostoryadditiontoMr._Shuman_sexistinghousein_Westmoreland_,SumnerCounty, *%* Tennessee.Accordingtotheagreement,Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁwastoframetheaddition,getitinthe +&+ dry,putonthevinylsiding,andhangthe_sheetrock_.Mr._Shuman_Ԁwastofinishthe_sheetrock_,do p,', therough,installtheplumbingandelectricalwiring,paintthewallsandinstalltheflooring.Mr. \-(-" _Shuman_Ԁassertedthatthepaymenttermspertheagreementwere$10,000forlaborplus10%  abovematerialcostswiththeprojectcostnottoexceedapproximately$40,000.Mr._Parkhurst_  contendedthattheagreementwasforlaboratanhourlyrateof$15.00forMr._Parkhurst_,$10.00  forhisworkersandanadditional10%abovematerialcosts. t   Mr._Parkhurst_ԀworkedonMr._Shuman_shomeadditionfortenweeksfromlate L  Septemberof1997toDecember10,1997,whereuponMr._Parkhurst_Ԁwalkedawayfromthe 8  project.Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁhadbeenpaidatotalof$38,209.39.Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁallegedthathewalked $ t awayfromtheprojectbecauseMr._Shuman_Ԁinstalled_sheetrock_Ԁpriortoinspectionofthe  ` electricalwiringinviolationoftheapplicablebuildingcode.Mr._Shuman_ԀassertedthatMr.  L  _Parkhurst_ԀwalkedawaybecauseMr._Parkhurst_Ԁdidnotwantthefriendshipbetweenthetwo  8  partiestosuffer.AfterMr._Parkhurst_Ԁceasedworkingontheaddition,Mr._Shuman_Ԁnoticed $  problemswithMr._Parkhurst_sconstruction,someofwhichcausedwaterdamagetoMr.   _Shuman_shome.Mr._Shuman_Ԁalsodiscoveredthathehadbeenchargedforcertainmaterials   whichwerenotusedontheproject.     Mr._Shuman_ԀsuedMr._Parkhurst_ԀforbreachofcontractandallegedthatMr._Parkhurst_s p chargingformaterialsnotactuallyusedwasadeceptiveandfraudulenttradepracticeinviolation \ oftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct. See Tenn.CodeAnn.4718101 etseq .(1995); H Tenn.CodeAnn.4718109(a)(1)(1995)( [_a]ny_Ԁpersonwhosuffersanascertainablelossof 4 moneyorproperty,real,personal,ormixed,oranyotherarticle,commodity,orthingofvalue  p whereversituated,asaresultoftheuseoremploymentbyanotherpersonofanunfairor  \ deceptiveactorpracticedeclaredtobeunlawfulbythispart,maybringanactionindividuallyto H recoveractualdamages.).Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁrespondedthathiswalkingawayfromtheprojectdid 4 notconstituteabreachbecausethepartiesagreementwasasimplearrangementforpaybythe   hourworksothateitherpartycouldterminatetheworkingrelationshipatanytime.Mr.   _Parkhurst_ԀdeniedanyfraudorviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.Mr.  _Parkhurst_ԀfurtherstatedthattherewerenodamagestobehadsinceMr._Shuman_Ԁonlypaidforthe  workMr._Parkhurst_Ԁdid,andMr._Shuman_Ԁexpectedtoexpendmoremoneytocompletethe  projectregardlessofMr._Parkhurst_sdeparture. l   ThetrialcourtenteredjudgmentforMr._Shuman_,awardinghim$8,021.14indamages D! and$424.75indiscretionarycosts.Additionally,thetrialcourtfoundthatMr._Parkhurst_Ԁviolated 0"  theTennesseeConsumerProtectionActbyfraudulentlychargingforthirtytwo2"x6"pressure #l! treatedboardswhichwerenotbroughttotheconstructionsite.Thetrialcourtdeclinedtoaward $X" trebledamages  #  1      ׀butawardedattorneysfeesintheamountof$2,406.33.  #  2      ׀ $D #  %0!$   Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁfilednoticeofappeal,raisingthefollowingissues,asweperceivethem,for  thiscourtsreview:    1. ` Whetherthedamagesawardedinthishomeconstructiondisputewere  t    ` legallywarranted. `   2. ` Whetherthetrialcourterredinfindingfraudinvolvingthirtytwo2"x6"  8     ` pressuretreatedboards,thereforejustifyinganawardof$2,406.33in  $ t    ` attorneysfeespursuanttotheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.  `   UnderTennesseelaw,awardingdamagesinbreachofcontractactionsoperatestoputthe  8  plaintiffinasgoodofapositionashewouldhavebeeninhadthecontractbeenperformed. See $  _Grantham_ԀandMann,Inc.v.AmericanSafetyProds.,Inc. ,831F.2d596,601(6thCir.1987).   Plaintiffbearstheburdenofprovingdamages. See_Volasco_ԀProds.Co.v.LloydA.FryRoofing   Co. ,308F.2d383,392(6thCir.1962) cert.denied ,372U.S.907,83S.Ct.721,9L.Ed.2d717   (1963).Ifdamageshavebeenshowntoexist,thendamagesmaybegrantedaslongasthereis   substantialevidenceintherecordtoallowthe_factfinder_Ԁtodrawareasonableinferenceandmake p afairandreasonableassessmentoftheamountofdamagestoaward. See_Grantham_andMann , \ 831F.2dat602; LeeShops,Inc.v._Schatten_ԄCypressCo. ,350F.2d12,18(6thCir.1965), cert. L denied ,382U.S.980,86S.Ct.552,15L.Ed.470(1966); RedbudCoop.Corp.v.Clayton ,700 < S.W.2d551,561(Tenn.Ct.App.1985); Cumminsv.Brodie ,667S.W.2d759,765(Tenn.Ct. (x App.1983). d   Aspartofhiscaseinchief,Mr._Shuman_Ԁtestifiedthatheincurredexpensestotaling < $8,521.14,thebreakdownofdamagesbeingasfollows:$1,000.00foradditionallaborand ( materialstoputinpiersforfoundation,$925.00torepairandreplacewaterdamaged_sheetrock_  andinsulationinnewconstruction,$300.00torepairdamagedwallsoninterioroforiginalhouse  andtoretrimkitchenwindowanddoor,$967.84torepairvinylwork,$2,000.00forMr.  _Shuman_slabortocorrectproblemscausedbyMr._Parkhurst_,$2,350.00forwagespaidtoTim  _Garris_Ԁtohelpsalvagedamages,and$978.30formaterialschargedtothejobbutnotused.To t supporthistestimony,Mr._Shuman_Ԁintroducedintoevidencenumerousbillsandreceiptsfor `  chargesforlaborandmaterials,picturesofthehomeadditionwhichshowedbucklingofthe L! vinylsiding,andavideotapewhichshowedvariousdefectsintheconstructionoftheadditionas 8"  wellasareasofwaterdamage.Withregardstodamages,thetrialcourtawardedMr._Shuman_ $#t! $8,021.14,reducingtheclaimforthepiersby$500.00.Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁaversthattheexpenses $`" claimedbyMr._Shuman_Ԁdonotrepresentalossandthusdonotsupportthedamagesaward. $L #   WeaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentforMr._Shuman_Ԁof$8,021.14indamages.This &$"% courtsreviewofthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactis denovo withapresumptionofcorrectness, '#& unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Becausethe (#' proofofdamagesconsistedsolelyofconflictingtestimonyofMr._Shuman_ԀandMr._Parkhurst_, )$( thiscourtrecognizesthat: *%)  p+&* 8  [_w]here_Ԁtheissuefordecisiondependsonthedeterminationofthecredibilityof  witnesses,thetrialcourtisthebestjudgeofthecredibilityanditsfindingsof  credibilityareentitledtogreatweight.Thisistruebecausethetrialcourtalone  hastheopportunitytoobservetheappearanceandthedemeanorofthewitnesses.t    TennTexPropertiesv._Brownell_ԄElectro,Inc. ,778S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1989); RoyalIns. L  Co.v.AllianceIns.Co. ,690S.W.2d541,543(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Theevidenceinthe 8  recorddoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Therecordcontains $ t sufficientevidencetosupportMr._Shuman_sallegationsofdamages,andgiventhelimitedscope  ` ofourreview,thiscourtmustgivegreatweighttothedecisionofthetrialcourtregardingmatters  L  ofcredibility.  8    Thesecondissueonappealinvolvesthetrialcourtsfindingoffraudconcerningthirty   two2"x6"pressuretreatedboardswhichresultedinanawardofattorneysfeesof$2,406.33.    See Tenn.CodeAnn.4718109(e)(1)(1995)( [_u]pon_Ԁafindingbythecourtthataprovisionof   thisparthasbeenviolated,thecourtmayawardtothepersonbringingsuchactionreasonable   attorneysfeesandcosts.).Mr._Shuman_ԀclaimedthatMr._Parkhurst_Ԁchargedhim$101.60for p sixteen2"x6"x10'pressuretreatedboardsand$79.36forsixteen2"x6"x8'pressuretreated \ boards,neitherofwhichweredeliveredtoorusedontheconstructionsite.Awitness,Tim H _Garris_,testifiedthatheobserved2"x6"pressuretreatedboardsbeingusedonagreenhousebeing 4 constructedbyMr._Parkhurst_ԀonpropertyownedbyMr._Parkhurst_sfatherandonaporchMr.  p _Parkhurst_ԀwasbuildingonMr._Parkhurst_sproperty.Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁclaimedthatthepressure  \ treatedlumberwasorderedforMr._Shuman_ԀandwasdeliveredtotheconstructionsiteonMr. H _Shuman_sproperty.Mr._Parkhurst_ԀadmittedthatMr._Shuman_Ԁwaschargedforthelumber,buthe 4 claimedthathedidnotknowwhatbecameofthelumberafteritwasdeliveredtoMr._Shuman_s   property.Uponthisevidence,thetrialcourtfoundfraudonbehalfofMr._Parkhurst_,stating,    Mr._Parkhurst_Ԁfoundanopportunitytochargesomethingtoajobandtotakeadvantageofit....  thatwasfraud....itwasthievery.Baseduponthefindingoffraud,thetrialcourtawardedMr.  _Shuman_Ԁattorneysfeesintheamountof$2,406.33,whichwascalculatedas30%ofthedamages  award. Unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindings,wemustaffirm,absenterrorof l law. Daileyv._Bateman_ ,937S.W.2d927,930(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Baseduponthe X  evidenceintherecord,thereisasufficientbasisforfindingaviolationoftheTennessee D! ConsumerProtectionAct,namelythefraudsurroundingthethirtytwo2"x6"pressuretreated 0"  boards.Thus,weaffirmtheawardofattorneysfees,holdingthatthisisanappropriatecasefor #l! suchaward. $X"   Mr._Shuman_Ԁhasrequestedadditionalattorneysfeesforthisappealintheamountof %0!$ $1,800.00pursuanttosection4718109(e)(1)oftheTennesseeCode.Inthiscourtsdiscretion, &"% therequestisdenied. '#&   )$(   Fortheforegoingreasons,thetrialcourtsjudgmentforMr._Shuman_Ԁisaffirmed.Costs  ofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,James_Parkhurst_Ԁd/b/a_Parkhurst_ԀHomeImprovement,  andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   $, XXX$#X XXX ~#   `     h     ___________________________________ 8     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE