WPC\ 8-!T;r= LYD?;d*qI nl߼G@t731mqZ( k9LˍaʊY90i[_E1#H ksdĎ;vCWw ·".d%Grdz-TRN9> *1D2F pO͹v|FBmuj5.-)UMy'1v?E K\,='*QuѤouW+Ϛ*~Qz欯dEĤ$h& cWX.tU`uftXoadTuT'|0!T,1. E{J(Qzlq,r]W؈gma/bJJF"a۔lpǑdv^_bUN\ % 0#8   ^ _ zk  UN  m w "  t4:NNP &XE~X b ^I 0D         # +  3  =  GGGGGGGbQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 0YYYY BDD 0a D3 D-8 0Kee AS 0 0Dm A("  Z6Times New Roman Regular (`$.8dd8    HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0C:\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.wptun)  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.wpt(I Z6Times New Roman RegularULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UUb) \Opinion Summary3|x N R0$      1   `V    _ ` Althoughtheissueonappealspeaksofdamages,inreality,thePlaintiffisseekingtorecoverthe  balanceitcontendsisowedforconstructingthehouse. t ?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.(#$  0  123456789101112- -(|G20$ !.8Hd d 8         0  2! d(|3$ !.8Hd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Hd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bd d8     _   ^ 81XXdd 8  @   ^INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# ^  #Ԉ &   May12,2000Session L  XX ^ # ^X X#%  STACY'SCARPETSTEAMCLEANINGCOMPANYd/b/aBENTNAIL J CONSTRUCTION%7v.%  %DAVIDE._MCNEELY_Ԁetal.   ^  XX ^@@ Direct%  %eAppealfromtheChancery%  ԀCourtforCarter%%  % ԀCounty 4  @@No.% ! Ԁ23016%!% " ԀJeanA.Stanley,Judge# ^X X*#%">  p FILEDNOVEMBER14,2000  p  @@*AV) ` dE<3` A 4   XX ^@@TTNo.% # ԀE199901880_COA_ԄR3CV# ^X XD#%#y W  AV) ` dE<V` A W  %    %` XX ^Stacy'sCarpetSteamCleaningCompanyd/b/aBentNailConstruction,thePlaintiff,appealsa x judgmentfromtheCarterCountyChanceryCourt.# ^X X#Ԁ XX ^ԀThePlaintiff'sissuesarewhethertheTrial d Courterredincalculatingthedamages,erredinfailingtoawardprejudgmentinterest,anderredin v failingtoenforceamechanic'slien.TheDefendantsraiseanissueinsistingthepartiesreachedan b accordandsatisfactionoranewcontract.WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtpursuantto N Rule10ofthisCourtastothePlaintiff'sissuesoneandtwoandastotheDefendants'issueand : modifyitsjudgmentastothePlaintiff'sissuethreeregardingenforcementofitslien.# ^X Xo# XX ^Ԁ# ^X X, # &v m % $  XX ^%$ Tenn.R.App.P.3;Judgmentofthe% % CircuitCourtAffirmed; 6 CauseRemanded%%   "r   HoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% & CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,%&  J and% ' D.Michael_Swiney_%'\ ,JJ.,joined.  6 %  KennethD.Hale,% Bristol,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Stacy'sCarpetSteamCleaningCompany "  d/b/aBentNailConstruction. #! %  % RobertJ._Jessee_,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheappellees,DavidE._McNeely_ԀandRenee_McNeely_. % # o  OPINION  F(#&     Stacy'sCarpetSteamCleaningCompanyd/b/aBentNailConstruction,thePlaintiff,was *n%( selectedtobuildahouseforDavidandRenee_McNeely_,theDefendants.Problemswere  +Z&) encounteredduringthebuildingofthehouse,andcostsofconstructionexceededinitialestimates. +F'*   ,2(+ _  TheTrialCourtfound,andweconcur,thatthepartieshadnocontractastothepricetobe   paidforbuildingtheDefendants'house,butthatthePlaintiffwouldbeentitledtorecoverunderthe  theoryofquantum_meruit_.     `    ThePlaintiff'sissuesinsistthattheTrialCourterredincalculatingthedamages, #  1      ׀erredin ` failingtoawardprejudgmentinterest,anderredinfailingtoenforceamechanic'slien. L    TheDefendantsraiseanissuecontendingthattheTrialCourtwasinerrorinnotfindingthat $ t "thepartieshadenteredintoanaccordandsatisfactionagreementand/oranewcontractforthe  ` completionoftheproject."  L    Ourreviewoftherecordandthebriefsfiledbythepartiespersuadesusthatastothe $  Plaintiff'sissuesoneandtwoandastotheDefendants'oneissue,thisisanappropriatecasefor   _affirmance_ԀunderRule10ofthisCourt.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthejudgment   oftheTrialCourtastotheseissuesraisedbytheparties.     NotwithstandingthatweareaffirmingthejudgmentunderRule10,webelieveitappropriate p toaddressbrieflyeachissueraisedbythePlaintiff.Astothefirst,theTrialCourtinitiallyawarded \ thePlaintiffajudgmentof$31,156.64which,onposttrialmotion,wasreducedto$17,025.Upon H inquiryoftheCourttocounselforbothparties,thePlaintiff'scounseladvisedthatthevalueofthe 4 lotandcompletedhousewasfoundbytheTrialJudgetobe$233,000,andtheevidenceintroduced  p doesnotpreponderateagainstthisfinding.TheTrialJudgethendeducedthefollowingitemsfrom  \ thevaluefound:costofthelot$25,000,improvementspaidforbytheDefendants$17,792,and H paymentsmadetothePlaintiffbytheDefendants$173,183.Thisleavesabalanceof$17,025, 4 whichwastheultimateawardmadebytheTrialJudge.     InacceptingtheDefendants'theory,wehavenotoverlookedtheresponsefromcounselfor  thePlaintiff.However,webelieveunderthetheoryofquantum_meruit_,theTrialCourtchosethe  properformulafordeterminingtheremainingamountowedforbuildingthehouse,thecostfor  whichwasinitiallyestimatedtobe$130,000. l   Finally,astothequestionofthefailureoftheTrialCourttoenforcethemechanic'slien D! againsttheDefendants'property,wedeemtheDefendants'failuretorespondtobeaconcessionthat 0"  itiswelltaken.Accordingly,weremandthecasefortheentryofsuchanorder. #l!   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremanded $D # forentryoftheaforementionedorder,suchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessary,and %0!$ collectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalftothePlaintiffandonehalftothe &"% Defendants. '#& Ї   `     h   _________________________________________     `     h   HOUSTONM._GODDARD_,PRESIDINGJUDGE t