ÿWPC  ‘[˜G«s†‘ºý¨òæ¢-²÷9æCUº„w× îO/‡ú±Hlçjj/+þì(J4 äa>$Gi͹ü4ÖxE di·7õ[ŽÖ n{²Qn¤‹ Ã^H”ç[r DEÓ«ŧþpiC0ÉM1¤ƒb¾ŸÂ&Âl~Ø1ñìG;‚Ðadl]]³˜ÍÇCrðÛ‹ÎÑO£?úX­ž`ÆÁ2u‹±Cõ÷Ê%öôïc#<ˆm‰ŽFŽIߎ©k=C3Gá¶\ˆ@°ºÜr¿?_´õ*Ï ÐÔé vëQKô•‚ä(æ®2…«½Æ&•“n×:Â1>À¾ª°ËBLŠÚ÷À²Û­®JÖP`_ÌÞp‚œ<ÿÈǼã =Ð.á-; {Eóäü1D´´¸‘fê=WÐ\/ä6¸7ªïʾ³K¥ ûÇt=eq’´‚¿T§Áw.èÌT¾†82"âcîCŽëпLµ‰ÈÐ}ò‚7fY ¥?¨‰XsZ*µ+%­¯Œîz®ú[ñAHˆŠF-FÆb %\UNb 0ˆ°UN8^ †w’4– zªÒ$ ö  m è Æ ÆÌ Æ’ ÆX #ÉNçÆé 0D¯Eóõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõbýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý 0ë Bðð 0¤  D5± D-æ 0K AS^Ʊ 0¤w 0D A«_»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÜ£i1Þ ÖƒF1ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ StinnettStinnetts S.W.BledsoerecissionSWINEYDenellSwaffordPikevillenon-juryBokorLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ¼Ý ƒR³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèÅò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€buyer€of€the€property€was€Kenneth€Stinnett.€€However,€Kenneth€Stinnett€and€wife,€Rebecca€Stinnett€filedÐ ° Ðsuit€seeking€recission€and€damages.€€For€the€sake€of€convenience€and€clarity,€both€Kenneth€Stinnett€and€Rebecca€StinnettÐ tÄ Ðare€referred€to€in€this€opinion€as€ð ðBuyerðð.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó þÝ ƒR³$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèÅò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSeller€denied€a€mutual€mistake€in€its€answer€and€argues€against€a€finding€of€mutual€mistake€in€its€brief€beforeÐ ° Ðthis€Court.€€However,€Sellerððs€counsel€in€opening€statement€to€the€trial€court€said,€ð ðI€would€concede€at€this€point€that€theyÐ tÄ Ðare€entitled€to€residual€[sic]€and€get€their€money€back€because€it€was€a€mutual€mistake,€that€is€all€we€are€talking€about.ðð€Ð 8ˆ ÐAlthough€Seller€is€bound€by€this€concession,€òòTamco€Supply€v.€Pollardóó,€37€S.W.€3d€905€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),Ð üL Ðnevertheless,€we€will€address€the€issue€of€mutual€mistake€in€this€opinion.- ù-(|G2³$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèÅò»»Ô d(|3ÿƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€I½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼I½»»»ÔÑ8€qXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€22,€2004€SessionÐ Ô$ ÐÌò òKENNETH€STINNETT,€ET€AL€òòóóv.€DUDLEY€D.€JOHNSTON,€ET€ALòòóó.Ô‡XqX»¼I½Ôó óÐ øH ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Bledsoe€CountyÐ ø H Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2730€€€€€€Honorable€Jeffrey€F.€Stewart,€JudgeÐ ä 4 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<» ` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02908„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV„€FILED€OCTOBER€19,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XãXXXXqÔÔ#†¼©ì»XXãXú#ÔÔ‡XãXX»¼©ìÔThis€appeal€involves€an€acreage€deficiency€in€the€conveyance€of€a€subdivision€lot.€Both€parties€toÐ ŠÚ  Ðthe€transaction€believed€that€the€lot€contained€2.4€acres.€€However,€a€survey€after€the€sale€determinedÐ vÆ  Ðthat€the€lot€contained€only€.93€acres.€The€parties€did€not€learn€of€the€acreage€discrepancy€until€afterÐ b² Ðthe€buyer€had€constructed€a€house€foundation€which€extended€approximately€15€feet€across€theÐ Nž Ðboundary€line€onto€a€neighborððs€property.€The€trial€court€determined€that€there€had€been€a€mutualÐ :Š Ðmistake€as€to€the€quantity€of€land€conveyed€and€ordered€a€€rescission€of€the€transaction.€The€trialÐ &v Ðcourt€awarded€the€buyer€damages€in€the€amount€of€$17,275.60€representing€a€refund€of€the€purchaseÐ b Ðprice,€reimbursement€for€grading,€labor,€construction€materials,€and€closing€costs€for€the€houseÐ þN Ðconstruction€loan.€The€seller€appealed.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€rescind€€the€transactionÐ ê: Ðbased€upon€mutual€mistake,€but€modify€the€award€of€damages.€€Ð Ö& ÐÔ#†XqXXXãXO#ÔÓCÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed€AsÐ ®þ ÐModified;€Case€Remanded€ó óÐ šê ÐÌòòÓ  ÓSharon€G.€Lee,€J.,óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.óó,òòóó€and€òòD.Ð r ÐMichael€Swiney,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ^® ÐÌLynne€Denell€Swafford,€Pikeville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Dudley€D.€Johnston€and€RobertÐ 6!†  ÐE.€Johnston.Ð ""r! ÐÌJ.€Arnold€Fitzgerald,€Dayton,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Kenneth€Stinnett€and€wife,€Rebecca€S.Ð ú#J# ÐStinnett.Ð æ$6 $ ÐÌÓ Óò òOPINIONó óÐ ¾&"& ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÔ‡XãXXXXqÔà0  àOn€May€23,€1996,€the€Appellants€herein,€Dudley€Johnston€and€Robert€Johnston,€(ð ðSellerðð)€Ð–(æ#((#(# Ðacquired€a€subdivision€lot€located€in€Bledsoe€County€which€they€believed€contained€2.4€acres€ofÐ ‚)Ò$) Ðland.€This€belief€was€based€on€information€obtained€from€the€Bledsoe€County€Tax€Assessorððs€officeÐ n*¾%* Ðwhich€stated€that€the€lot€contained€2.4€acres.€Dudley€Johnston€subsequently€heard€that€KennethÐ Z+ª&+ ÐStinnett€(ð ðBuyerðð)was€interested€in€purchasing€some€property.€Dudley€Johnston€went€to€KennethÐ F,–', ÐStinnett€and€advised€him€that€he€had€2.4€acres€for€sale.€Ô#†XqXXXãXB #ÔÔ‡XãXXXXqÔDudley€Johnston€and€Kenneth€StinnettÐ 2-‚(-ý ÐÔ_Ôviewed€the€property,€on€which€Dudley€Johnston€had€a€sign€advertising€the€property€as€containing€ð ð2+Ð ° Ðacres.ððÔ#†XqXXXãX#ÔÔ‡XãXXXXqÔ€There€were€no€visible€markers€establishing€the€corners.€Dudley€Johnston€pointed€out€oneÐ œì Ðfixed€corner€which€was€the€intersection€of€two€roadways€and€generally€pointed€out€the€other€twoÐ ˆØ Ðcorners.€The€parties€did€not€walk€the€lines€or€measure€the€boundaries.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThereafter,€on€June€22,€1999,€the€owners€of€the€property,€Dudley€Johnston€and€RobertÐ L œ ÐJohnston,€executed€a€warranty€deed€to€Kenneth€Stinnett€for€the€subdivision€lot€for€the€considerationÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€$7,500.00.€The€deed€described€the€property€by€metes€and€bounds€and€made€no€representation€asÐ $ t Ðto€acreage.€Thereafter,€Kenneth€Stinnett€and€his€wife,€Rebecca€Stinnett,€began€construction€of€aÐ  ` Ðhouse€on€the€property.€While€the€house€was€under€construction,€Dudley€Johnston€stopped€by€theÐ ü L  Ðconstruction€site.€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Stinnett€testified€that€Dudley€Johnston€said€that€it€looked€like€theÐ è 8  Ðhouse€was€right€in€the€middle€of€the€property.€Dudley€Johnston€did€not€recall€making€this€statement,Ð Ô$  Ðbut€did€recall€commenting€that€the€Stinnetts€had€a€nice€building€spot.€€Dudley€Johnston€testified€thatÐ À  Ðhe€thought€that€the€house€was€being€constructed€on€the€property€conveyed€to€Kenneth€Stinnett.€Ð ¬ü  ÐShortly€after€the€grading€work€had€been€completed€and€the€foundation€was€constructed,€a€survey€wasÐ ˜è  Ðperformed.€It€was€at€this€point€that€the€parties€learned€that€the€property€contained€only€.93€acres€andÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€partially€constructed€house€extended€approximately€15€feet€across€the€property€line.€Ð pÀ ÐAccording€to€Kenneth€Stinnettððs€testimony€at€trial,€the€partially€constructed€house€foundation€wasÐ \¬ Ðof€no€use€and€whoever€ended€up€with€the€property€would€have€to€remove€it.Ð H˜ ЀÌà  àOn€March€14,€2001,€suit€was€filed€by€the€Buyer׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€against€the€Seller€alleging€misrepresentationÐ  p Ðand€seeking€recission€and€reimbursement€for€the€purchase€money€plus€all€funds€expended€on€theÐ  \ Ðproperty.€The€Defendants€answered€the€complaint€denying€€liability€and€asserting€that€the€BuyerÐ øH Ðshould€have€located€the€corners€and€lines€before€making€any€improvements€thereon.€Ô#†XqXXXãX2#ÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€bench€trial€on€June€5,€2003,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€there€had€been€a€mutualÐ ¼  Ðmistake€concerning€the€amount€of€land€offered€for€sale€and€there€had€been€a€substantial€deviationÐ ¨ø Ðfrom€what€the€parties€thought€was€for€sale€and€what€was€actually€conveyed€to€the€purchasers.€Ð ”ä ÐAccordingly,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€transaction€should€be€rescinded.€€At€a€subsequent€hearingÐ €Ð Ðon€July€24,€2003,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€Buyer€damages€in€the€total€amount€of€€$17,275.60€basedÐ l¼ Ðupon€a€refund€of€the€purchase€price€in€the€amount€of€$7,500.00,€reimbursement€for€grading€andÐ X ¨ Ðexcavation€cost€in€the€amount€of€$655.00,€reimbursement€for€labor€in€laying€blocks€in€the€amountÐ D!” Ðof€$402.65,€reimbursement€for€blocks€in€the€amount€of€$625.00,€reimbursement€for€lumber€andÐ 0"€  Ðbuilding€materials€in€the€amount€of€$5,139.00,€and€€reimbursement€for€loan€closing€costs€for€theÐ #l! Ðhouse€construction€in€the€amount€of€$2,953.95.€Upon€payment€of€the€judgment€by€the€Seller,€theÐ $X" Ðâ âBuyer€was€ordered€to€€execute€a€deed€conveying€the€property€back€to€the€Seller.€€Ð ô$D # Ðà  àOn€appeal,€the€Seller€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€there€had€been€a€mutualÐ ° Ðmistake׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€erred€in€its€award€of€damages.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  à€In€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€proceedings€below,€but€theÐ tÄ Ðrecord€comes€to€us€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determinationÐ `° Ðwhich€we€must€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð L œ Ð13(d);€òòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€law€are€accorded€no€such€presumption.€òòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corpóó.,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€Ð  ` ÐÌÒe°Òà ½ àWhen€the€Seller€acquired€the€property€without€the€benefit€of€a€survey€in€1996,€the€SellerÐ è 8  Ðbelieved€that€the€property€contained€2.4€acres€based€upon€information€obtained€from€the€BledsoeÐ Ô$  ÐCounty€Tax€Assessorððs€office.€The€Seller€posted€a€sign€on€the€property€stating€that€the€propertyÐ À  Ðcontained€ð ð2+€acres.ðð€The€Seller€represented€to€the€Buyer€that€the€property€contained€2.4€acres.€€WhenÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€Buyer€acquired€the€property,€he€thought€it€contained€2.4€acres€based€upon€the€representations€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Seller.€However,€the€property€contained€only€contained€.93€acres€based€upon€a€survey€obtainedÐ „Ô  Ðafter€the€sale.€It€is€clear€that€both€the€Seller€and€the€Buyer€were€mistaken€as€to€the€quantity€of€landÐ pÀ Ðbeing€conveyed.€This€appears€to€have€resulted€from€a€simple€mistake€rather€than€any€intentionalÐ \¬ Ðmisrepresentation€or€fraud.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà ½ àRecission€of€a€contract€may€be€ordered€upon€the€ground€of€mutual€mistake.€òòAtkins€v.Ð  p ÐKirkpatrickóó,€823€S.W.2d€547€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòWilson€v.€Mid„State€Homes,€Incóó.,€53€Tenn.€App.Ð  \ Ð520,€384€S.W.2d€459,€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964).€To€justify€recission€of€a€contract,€the€character€of€theÐ øH Ðmistake€must€be€such€as€to€result€from€unconscious€ignorance€or€forgetfulness€of€a€fact€material€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€contact€or€transaction.€Whether€a€mistake€is€material€to€the€transaction€is€a€question€that€dependsÐ Ð  Ðon€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€case.€€òòRobinson€v.€Brooksóó,€577€S.W.2d€207,€209€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¼  ÐApp.€1978).€It€has€been€held€that€mistakes€as€to€quantities€and€boundaries€of€land€are€materialÐ ¨ø Ðmistakes€justifying€recissionòò.€Isaacs€v.€Bokoróó,€566€S.W.2d€532,€541€(Tenn.€1978).Ð ”ä ÐÌà ½ àIn€this€case,€it€is€evident€that€both€parties€were€mistaken€as€to€the€location€of€the€boundariesÐ l¼ Ðand€the€size€of€the€lot.€Both€parties€believed€that€the€lot€contained€in€excess€of€two€acres,€when€in€fact,Ð X ¨ Ðit€only€contained€.93€acres.€Both€parties€believed€that€the€house€was€being€constructed€on€the€propertyÐ D!” Ðconveyed,€when€it€fact,€its€foundation€extended€approximately€15€feet€across€the€boundary€line.€€Thus,Ð 0"€  Ðthe€mistake€as€to€the€location€of€the€boundaries€and€the€size€of€the€lot€was€mutual€and€was€materialÐ #l! Ðto€the€contract.€€Accordingly,€there€was€abundant€proof€to€support€a€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€theÐ $X" ÐBuyer€was€entitled€to€a€recission€of€the€warranty€deed.€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà ½ àThe€remaining€issue€concerns€the€amount€of€damages€which€the€Buyer€is€entitled€to€receive.€Ð ° Ðâ âClearly€the€Buyer€is€entitled€to€receive€a€refund€of€the€$7,500.00€purchase€price.€€The€real€issue€is€howÐ œì Ðmuch€of€the€funds€expended€on€the€construction€of€the€house€should€the€buyer€recoup?Ð ˆØ ÐÌà ½ àOur€Supreme€Court€in€òòIsaacs€v.€Bokoróó,€566€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€1978)€considered€this€issueÐ `° Ðand€reviewed€a€series€of€recission€cases€dating€back€to€the€1800's.€€The€Court€concluded€that€whereasÐ L œ Ða€purchaser€who€has€been€the€victim€of€either€fraud€or€mistake€upon€recission,€is€allowed€to€recoverÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€purchase€price,€it€does€not€necessarily€follow€that€the€purchase€price€is€the€only€amount€which€canÐ $ t Ðever€be€recovered€by€the€injured€party.€€The€Court€said:Ð  ` ÐÌà8 ½ àà0 ½Ð ½Ð à...it€is€too€narrow€a€view€to€state€that€a€vendee,€upon€recission,€is€limitedÐ è 8  Ðstrictly€to€the€purchase€price€which€he€paid€for€the€property.€When€he€hasÐ Ô$  Ðchanged€his€position€and€made€improvements,€he€may€well€be€entitled€toÐ À  Ðrecover€for€their€value,€although,€in€attempting€to€restore€the€parties€to€theirÐ ¬ü  Ðformer€status,€courts€may€require€the€vendee€to€account€to€the€vendor€for€theÐ ˜è  Ðuse€or€rental€value€of€the€property,€to€convey€improvements€to€him,€and€toÐ „Ô  Ðrestore€to€the€vendor€anything€of€value€which€the€vendee€has€received€fromÐ pÀ Ðhim€in€the€rescinded€transaction.€€òòId.€at€540óó.€Ð\¬ Ð  Ð  ÐÌà ½ àTherefore,€the€Buyer€may€be€entitled€to€receive€more€than€a€refund€of€the€purchase€priceÐ 4„ Ðdepending€on€the€facts€before€the€court.€Where€improvements€have€been€made€to€the€property€by€theÐ  p Ðvendee,€it€seems€that€a€threshold€determination€must€be€made€as€to€whether€the€improvements€haveÐ  \ Ðvalue€or€enhanced€the€value€of€the€property.Ð øH ÐÌà ½ àWe€respectfully€disagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€case€to€allow€the€Buyer€toÐ Ð  Ðrecoup€all€documented€construction€expenses€and€construction€loan€expenses€incurred€by€him.€WhereÐ ¼  Ða€deed€is€rescinded€and€the€Buyer€has€expended€sums€to€improve€the€property,€clearly€in€some€cases,Ð ¨ø Ðit€would€be€appropriate€and€equitable€for€the€Seller€to€pay€the€Buyer€for€the€improvements€since€theÐ ”ä ÐSeller€will€ultimately€benefit€from€these€improvements.€However,€in€this€case€it€appears€that€theÐ €Ð Ðimprovements€did€€not€benefit€the€property€and€may€have€to€be€removed€at€the€expense€of€the€SellerÐ l¼ Ðonce€the€property€is€reconveyed€to€him.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà ½ àThis€case€arose€as€a€result€of€a€mutual€mistake€and,€unfortunately,€it€is€not€possible€to€put€bothÐ 0"€  Ðparties€back€in€the€position€that€they€were€in€prior€to€the€transaction.€The€Buyer€incurred€expenses€forÐ #l! Ða€foundation€that€is€useless€and€does€not€improve€the€value€of€the€property.€The€Seller€will€own€aÐ $X" Ðsubdivision€lot€encumbered€by€a€useless€foundation€that€will€have€to€be€removed€before€any€structureÐ ô$D # Ðis€built€on€the€lot.€Both€parties€have€sustained€a€loss€as€a€result€of€the€mistake.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà ½ àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€under€the€particular€facts€of€this€case,€the€Buyer€should€only€beÐ ¸'#& Ðallowed€to€recover€from€the€Seller€the€amount€of€this€purchase€price€since€the€funds€expended€by€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐBuyer€for€construction€of€the€foundation€did€not€enhance€the€value€of€the€property€and€is€of€no€benefitÐ )à$( Ðto€the€Seller.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà ½ àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€rescind€the€transaction€based€upon€mutualÐ ° Ðmistake€and€modify€the€award€of€damages€to€the€Buyer€to€the€amount€of€$7,500.00,€plus€prejudgmentÐ œì Ðinterest€from€the€date€the€Buyer€paid€the€purchase€price€to€the€Seller.€€We€tax€€the€costs€of€this€appealÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€Defendants€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % à__________________________Ð 8 ˆ Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àò òSHARON€G.€LEE,€JUDGE€ó ó€Ô#†¼I½»XXq‘#Ô