WPCI  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0@9 D39w@: 0JW: 0T: 0^: 0hS; 0r; 0|-< 0< 0/= 1u= 0d4>U6>B)>DC> AM:?U*??U>@v~AvB AOVHH 0DkI D/I BIV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dR"$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  HOWELLBERKEFRAYN HANN LEGGCHADWICKTINDELLMashburnMcMinnremediation t]he 12I 12FLoveday("$    GGGG'dxd DDEEӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  VWXYZ[\] ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dgggg7Border 1ddNhC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#f  jj   YYY FILEDjX May23,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.jAppellateCourtClerk <  9p`(&Times New RomanPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva NC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . f    7* XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  g u` RikhA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONJONH.TATE@ @ ) MONROECOUNTY@ ) 03A019609CH00284 PlaintiffAppellant  @ )@ )@ ) v.  @ ) HON.EARLH.HENLEY,̀@ ) CHANCELLOR@ ) @ KENNETHMASHBURN@ )@ ) DefendantAppellee@ ) VACATEDANDREMANDEDGEORGEF.LEGGandCHADWICKB.TINDELLOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTJ.REEDDIXONOFSWEETWATERFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  InthisrealestatecontractdisputeoverthereturnoftheBuyersearnestmoney,JonH.Tate,Buyerofrealproperty,appealstheMonroeChanceryCourtsdecisiontograntsummaryjudgmentinhisfavorforonly$10,000lԀfԀplusprejudgmentinterestastoearnestmoneythathepaidtotheSeller,KennethMashburn.  TheBuyerinsistsonappealthattheTrialCourterredinnotfindingthatheshouldreceiveatotalawardof$20,000plusprejudgmentinterest,consistingofthe$10,000earnestmoneypaidincidenttotheoriginalcontractandanadditional$10,000paidinconsiderationforamodificationoftheoriginalcontract.Additionally,theBuyerinsiststhattheTrialCourterredonproceduralgroundsbyallowingtheSellertofileanaffidavitafteroriginallygrantingthesummaryjudgmentandinreconsideringthesummaryjudgment.  OnDecember,16,1992,JonH.Tate,Buyer,andKennethMashburn,Seller,enteredintoarealestatecontractforthesaleofpropertyinMonroeCountyfor$600,000tobeclosedonMarch1,1993.Pursuanttothecontract,theBuyerwasrequiredtopaytheSeller$10,000inearnestmoney.Thecontractprovidedinpertinentpart:       THATINCONSIDERATIONofthepaymentbyBuyertoSellerofthesumofTENTHOUSAND($10,000.00)DOLLARS,tobeheldinescrowbytheBrokerforthistransaction,asearnestmoneyandaspartofthepurchaseprice,thereceiptofwhichisherebyacknowledged,SelleragreestosellandBuyeragreestobuythefollowingdescribedproperty:@ ...12.OTHERCONDITIONS: Saleandclosingaresubjecttothefollowing:@ ...F.BuyershallfurnishSeller,atBuyersexpensetobepaidatclosing,aLevel1EnvironmentalSurveyoftheresidentialpremises.ShouldsuchLevel1EnvironmentalSurveyindicatethepresenceofanyhazardoussubstancesordepositsofchemicalsorothertoxicmaterialwhichmightresultinrequiredsiteremediationinaccordancewithstateandfederallaw,Sellershalltakesuchaction,priortoclosing,asmaybenecessarytorestoretheresidentialpremisestoacceptableenvironmentalstandards.@ ...I.BuyerbeingabletoobtainaFirstMortgageloan,onfavorabletermstoBuyer,intheamountofFourHundredThousand($400,000.00)fromSouthernUnitedBankofMcMinnCountyorotherbankselectedbyBuyer.13.Ifanyoftheconditionsofparagraph12.aboveoranypartofthisAgreementcannotbecompletedtothesatisfactionoftheBuyer,thentheBuyermay,athissolediscretion,berefundedtheearnestmoneydepositandnocontractwillexist.         AsofMarch1,1993,theoriginalclosingdate,thesalehadyettooccur.Therefore,onApril30,1993,theBuyerandtheSellerenteredintoaModificationAgreementinwhichtheBuyerwasrequiredtopayanadditional$10,000inearnestmoney,andtheclosingdatewouldbeextendedtoMay28,1993.TheModificationAgreementprovidedinpertinentpart,asfollows:       RESOLVED,thatinconsiderationofthepaymentofTenThousand($10,000.00)DollarstoSeller,directandnotthroughhisAgent,SelleragreestoreinstatetheexpiredContractandbothBuyerandSelleragreetothefollowingadditionalconditionsthatmodifytheContract:1.InitialearnestmoneypaidatexecutionoftheContractisnotrefundabletoBuyerintheeventBuyerfailstocloseontheContract,unlessduetoenvironmentalproblemsthatSellerisunableorunwillingtoremediate.SaidearnestmoneywillbeappliedtothePurchasePriceifBuyerclosesonContract.2.AdditionalpaymentofTenThousand($10,000.00)DollarspaidbyBuyerdirectlytoSellerisnotrefundableforanyreasonexceptifenvironmentalproblemscannotorwillnotberemediatedbySeller.SaidreinstatementfeeshallbeappliedtoPurchasePriceifBuyerclosesonContract.3.Buyerwillengageenvironmentalengineertocompleteanalysistosatisfylendinginstitutionthesiteisenvironmentallysafe.ThecostsoftheenvironmentalanalysisshallbebornbyBuyer.4.ClosingwilloccuronMay28,1993.Intheeventtheenvironmentalanalysisorremediationisnotcompletedbythisdate,theLendingInstitution,FirstNationalBankofKnoxville,willcreateanescrowfundtoholdallfundsbroughttoClosing.Disbursementofthesefundswilloccurwhentheenvironmentalanalysisiscompleteandnositeremediationisrequired.Ifremediationisrequired,adequatefundswillberetainedbyescrowagentanddisbursedwhenremediationiscomplete.         OnJune14,1993,InternationalWasteManagementSystemscompletedaPhaseIEnvironmentalSiteEvaluationofthepropertywhichwarnedofapotentialhazardoussubstanceonthepropertywhichhadbeenstoredonadjacentproperty.TheBuyerwassubsequentlydeniedamortgageloanonthepropertybyFirstNationalBankofKnoxville,andthereforethecontractfailedtoclose.OnAugust,27,1993,theBuyerallegedthathehadsatisfiedallofhisdutiesunderthecontractanddemandedfromtheSellerareturnofthe$20,000inearnestmoney.TheSellerrefusedandtheBuyerfiledsuitonJanuary24,1995,demandingareturnoftheearnestmoney.  AftertheSellerfiledhisanswertothecomplaint,theBuyerfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonJuly26,1995,supportedbyhisownaffidavitandanaffidavitofaloanofficerfromFirstNationalBankofKnoxville.TheTrialCourtgrantedtheBuyersmotionforsummaryjudgmentonOctober3,1995,andawardedhim$20,000plusprejudgmentinterest.Priortotheentryofanorder,theSellerfiledamotiontoreconsideronOctober19,1995,alongwithasupportingaffidavitonNovember27,1995.ThereisnoindicationintherecordthattheBuyermadeanyobjectiontotheSellersfilingoftheadditionalaffidavitatthattime.TheTrialCourtreheardthemotionforsummaryjudgmentandalteredtheoriginalruling,andheldintheBuyersfavorfor$10,000plusprejudgmentinterest.TheBuyerappealsthefinalorder.  TheBuyersfirstissueonappealisthattheTrialCourterredbyconsideringtheSellersaffidavitfiledonNovember27,1995,insupportoftheSellersOctober19,1995,motiontoreconsider.Inthisadditionalaffidavit,theSellermadeadditionalallegationsthathedidnotmakeintheoriginalaffidavithefiledinresponsetothemotionforsummaryjudgment.Thislateraffidavitwasfilednearlytwomonthsaftertheoriginalsummaryjudgmenthearing.TheBuyerreliesonTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure6.04(2)whichstates,       Whenamotionissupportedbyaffidavit,theaffidavitshallbeservedwiththemotion;and,exceptasotherwiseprovidedinRule59.02,opposingaffidavitsmaybeservednotlaterthanone(1)daybeforethehearing, unlessthecourtpermitsthemtobeservedatsomeothertime .(Emphasisadded.)         TheSellerinsiststhattheTrialCourtwaswellwithinitsdiscretiontoconsideranadditionalaffidavitandreliesonthepreviouslyemphasizedlanguageandTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure56.05whichstates [t]hecourtmaypermitaffidavitstobesupplementedoropposedbydepositions,answerstointerrogatories,orfurtheraffidavits.WeagreeandconcludethatitwaswithinthediscretionoftheTrialCourttoconsidertheSellersadditionalaffidavitsinhismotiontoreconsiderthemotionforsummaryjudgment.  TheBuyerssecondissueonappealisthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatheshouldhavereceivedanawardof$20,000plusinterestasamatteroflawtoaccountforthetwocheckshegavetheSellerasearnestmoney.  TheSellerclaimsthathedoesnotowetheBuyerafullrefundoftheearnestmoneybecausethecontractwasbreachedbytheBuyer,nothim.Healternativelyarguesthat,atmost,heowestheBuyeronly$10,000sincehe,asSeller,hadonlyreceivedoneofthe$10,000checks.Heallegesthatthefirst$10,000paymentwasgiventoBillEccles,whoheinsistswastheBuyer'sagent.TheBuyerdeniesthatMr.Eccleswashisagent.Sincethisisasummaryjudgment,ifagenuineissueofmaterialfactisfound,thecasemustberemandedforfurtherfactfinding. AccordingtoRule56.03,summaryjudgmentistobegrantedifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).AreviewoftheaffidavitsintherecordshowthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhetherMr.EccleswastheBuyer'sortheSellersagent.ThisfactismaterialsinceitcannotbedeterminedwhethertheBuyereverpaidtheSellertheoriginalearnestmoneyunlessitisfirstdeterminedwhoseagentMr.Eccleswas.  TheBuyerarguesthattheissueofwhoseagentMr.Eccleswasisnotanissueoffactsinceasamatteroflaw,Mr.EccleswastheSellersagent.TheBuyerreliesonthelanguageinLovedayv.Barnes,909S.W.2d448(Tenn.App.1995),quotingfrom3Am.Jur.2d278,whichstates:       Paymentmadetoanagenthavingauthoritytoreceiveorcollectpaymentisequivalenttopaymenttotheprincipalhimself;suchpaymentiscompletewhenthemoneyisdeliveredintotheagentshands,andisadischargeoftheindebtednessowingtotheprincipal,eventhoughtheagentmisappropriatesthemoney,orfailstoturnitovertotheprincipal.Thisistrue,whethertheagenthastheexpressauthoritytocollect,whetherhisauthorityisimplied,isincidentaltotheagencytransaction,orwhetheritarisesfromthefactthattheprincipalhasheldtheagentoutashavingapparentauthoritytocollectandthedebtorhasrelieduponsuchappearanceofauthority.       ItisnotclearfromtherecordwhetherMr.Eccleshadanyauthority,expressorimplied,toserveastheSellersagent.Therefore,Lovedayv.Barnesisnotcontrollinginthiscase.WeconcludethattheissueofwhoseagentMr.EccleswasisagenuineissueoffactandremandtotheTrialCourtforafindingofthisissue.IfitisfoundthatMr.EccleswastheBuyersagent,theBuyerhasnorecourseagainsttheSellerforthe$10,000.IftheTrialCourtfindsthatMr.EccleswastheSellersagent,theBuyerscauseofactionproperlyliesagainsttheSellerforthe$10,000undertheholdinginLovedayv.Barnes.   TheSellerarguesthatthereareothergenuineissuesoffactthatwouldprecludeasummaryjudgmentintheBuyersfavor.HearguesthattheBuyerdidnotcomplywithhisdutiesunderthecontract,andthusheisnotentitledtoareturnoftheearnestmoney.HeinsiststhattheBuyerdidnotsatisfythefinancingrequirementsinParagraph12Ioftheoriginalcontract.Additionally,theSellerallegesthattheBuyerbreachedtheoriginalcontractandthemodificationagreementbyfailingtocompletetheenvironmentaltestingrequiredinparagraph12Foftheoriginalcontractandparagraph3oftheModificationAgreement.TheSellerdeniesthathebreachedthecontract,allegingthelandwasnotactuallyenvironmentallycontaminated.TheBuyerdenieseachoftheseallegationsand,therefore,thereisagenuineissueoffact.EachoftheseissuesimpactstheultimatequestionwhethertheBuyerisduearefundofalloftheearnestmoney.  Inamotionforsummaryjudgment,thisCourtmustconsiderthecaseinamannerwhere alltheevidencemustbeviewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheopponentofthemotionandalllegitimateconclusionsoffactmustbedrawninfavoroftheopponent.Byrd,supra.Therefore,weconcludetherearegenuineissuesofmaterialfactthatmustbedeterminedattrial,andthiscasedidnotsatisfytherequirementsofRule56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureforsummaryjudgments.WeholdthatthisisanappropriatecaseforanevidentiaryhearingintheTrialCourt.  Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacatedandthecaseisremandedforahearingtodetermineMr.Eccles'principalandwhethereitherpartybreachedthecontract.Exercisingourdiscretion,weassessthecostsofappealonehalftoMr.MashburnandonehalftoMr.Tateandhissurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.