ÿWPC  o³My¥§õÙ1fß(@ãÛºÇÁ½ýe±¥nò,wgã#ÓVÒþ¶¬Ùj<é³uÃ)Fk ”[§FG^Yè^#-/Âx¼9̇íÅŒs<õÿI¨}³ªÐ ‹E”[IâM.ŒJÀ?ñðŽ’æï¿Q—d;mìŠoìô2 zô$MQá{¯½¸ˆ§A0Zi ½f5}ÚV]}„‡¶çj+(Q,õBUØs¤N$yŒÅ þ5Jîð’{z1µ I¦ÒíÑN¯L¡FÀfd±*Â|M;»obu.UÝߌ]ÖR)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åw@ÿ4?SU :bœ 0l¤ 0DLT -¨ 0DÕ*U:C *} U:§ § § § § § § § § § § AQá Æ2 0Dø B< 0DY Y D/ BÌ D3é ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular  Uà Ä gÅ DÆ UÇ UÈ É Ó€Õ Ø n~<$3|xØ , øð AZ‹"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT #Ñ#€iXÿÿd#Ñ(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÔ‚XXXÔÔ€ú.XXÔ‚ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÔ‚Xú.ÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€30,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôµŒôXXÔ‚ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÔ‚XXXÔÔ€ú.XXÔ‚ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÔ‚Xú.ÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€29,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôµŒôXXÔ‚ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X.*jx«ùß` `€€@Esï` ttx$«'ð œ tß›ñØ ñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌRALPH€E.€COULTER,€JOHNNYà h àà À à)Ð P  ÐWATKINS,€and€RONNIE€COULTER,à À à)Ð ð@  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óDefendants/Appelleesà À àò ò)ó óÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð À ÐJOHNNY€WATKINS,à  àà h àà À à)Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óCross„Plaintiff,à h àà À àò ò)Ð à Ðvs.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌRALPH€COULTER€and€RONNIEà À à)Ð `° ÐCOULTER,à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óCross„Defendants.à h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ 0€ ÐÌÌà@  ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€TIPTON€COUNTYˆÌà@[[ìàAT€COVINGTON,€TENNESSEEˆÌà@  ìàTHE€HONORABLE€JON€KERRY€BLACKWOOD,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌò òBLANCHARD€E.€TUALó óÐ  #ð! ÐMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌò òWALKER€T.€TIPTONó óÐ `'°"% ÐCovington,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellees,€Ralph€Coulter€and€Ronnie€CoulterÌÌò òANDREW€S.€JOHNSTONó óÐ  +p&) ÐSomerville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Johnny€WatkinsÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ Ð/ +. ÐÌÌÌÌó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.Ð €4Ð/3 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌñÉ ññÁ ñÑ;ÑÑ7€XXXÌ>ÔÔ#†XÌ>XX XÌ>¦#Ôñ¿ ñÔ‡ X<2XXX<2ÔÐ Ð  Ѐ€Ìà  àPlato€Touliatos,€a€second€expert€witness,€testified€for€the€Barrys€as€to€the€damageÏdone€to€their€property€as€a€result€of€the€removal€of€the€PaulowniaÔ#†X<2XX X<2¡#ÔÔ‡ X<2XXX<2Ôs.€€After€surveying€theÐ p&À!$ Ðland€in€question€for€2„3€hours,€with›€soil€and€root€erosion€brought€on€by€the€removalÏprocess,€Touliatos€reckoned€the€damage€to€be€$4,081.98.€€More€specifically,€TouliatosÏtestified€that€the€land€valuation€had€diminished€by€$2,200€because€of€the€removal€of€theÏPaulownias.€€œAlso,›€Touliatos€testified€that€in€order€to€stabilize€the€current€state€of€the€land,Ï90€bales€of€pine€needles€would€be€required€at€a€cost€of€$1,881.98.€ñ¿ ñœñ¿ ñ€The€Coulters€andÏWatkins€offered€no€testimony€to€rebut€Touliatosððs€testimony€as€to€the€damages€resultingÏfrom€the€Paulownia€removal€process.€€œÌ›Ìà  àThe€Barrys€filed€a€complaint€against€the€Coulters€and€Watkins€seeking€damages€forÏthe€cutting€and€conversion€of€Paulownia€trees€from€their€property€as€well€as€for€damagesÐ 09€48 Ðto€their€property€resulting€from€the€removal€process.€€The€Barrys€alleged€that€the€CoultersÏand€Watkins€had€willfully€trespassed€upon€their€property€and€cut€32€Paulownia€trees.€€œThe›ÏCoulters€and€Watkins€took€issue€with€these€allegations€in€their€answers.€ñÅ ñœñÅ ñ€This€cause€wasÏheard€by€the€trial€court€without€a€jury.€€After€hearing€the€evidence€in€this€matter,€the€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€Coulter€and€Watkins€had€negligently€cut€13€Paulownia€trees€from€the€œBarry›Ïproperty€and€found€their€value€to€be€$1,930.€€The€trial€court€further€found€the€damage€toÏthe€property€resulting€from€the€removal€process€to€be€$4,081.98.€€The€Barrys€appealed.ÌÌà  àÔ#†X<2XX X<2#ÔInasmuch€as€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€this€CourtððsÐ ° Ðreview€on€appeal€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(d),€whichÏdirects€us€to€review€the€case€òòde€novoóó.€€òòRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€692Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€863,€865€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòHaverlah€v.€Memphis€œAviation,€›Inc.óó,€674€S.W.2dÐ P  Ð297,€300€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€In€conducting€a€òòde€novoóó€reviewÐ 0€ Ðof€the€record€below,€however,€this€Court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€factÏare€correct.€€Under€this€standard€of€review,€we€must€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€unlessÏthe€trial€court€committed€an€error€of€law€affecting€the€result€or€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòRobertsóó,€692€S.W.2d€at€865.Ô‡ X<2XXX<2ÔÐ °"  ÐÌà  àÔ#†X<2XX X<2C(#ÔThe€trial€judge€heard€the€witnesses€in€this€matter€and€reviewed€several€exhibits,Ð p&À!$ Ðincluding€many€photographs€of€Paulownia€trees.€The€trial€judge€also€was€able€to€observeÏthe€witnesses€and€make€a€determination€based€upon€what€he€saw€and€heard.€€In€light€ofÏthis,€this€court€must€apportion€great€deference€to€that€finding€when€determining€whetherÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€judge's€determination.€€òòSee€Humphrey€v.Ð ð-@), ÐDavid€Witherspoon,€Inc.óó,€734€S.W.2d€315€(Tenn.€1987).€€When€œa›€matter€such€as€thisÐ Ð/ +. Ðhinges€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€trial€court€will€not€be€reversed€unless€there€isÏfound€in€the€record€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€other€than€the€oral€testimonyÏof€witnesses€that€contradicts€the€trial€court's€findings.€€òòGalbreath€v.€Harrisóó,€811€S.W.2d€88,Ð p5À04 Ð91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990),€cert.€denied,€502€U.S.€939,€112€S.Ct.€374,€116€L.Ed.2d€326Ï(1991).€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€observed:Ð 09€48 ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€trial€judge's€major€role€is€the€determination€of€fact,€andÏwith€experience€in€fulfilling€that€role€comes€expertise.€ÏDuplication€of€the€trial€judge's€efforts€in€the€court€of€appealsÏwould€very€likely€contribute€only€negligibly€to€the€accuracy€ofÏfact€determination€at€a€huge€cost€in€diversion€of€judicialÏresources.€€In€addition,€the€parties€to€a€case€on€appeal€haveÏalready€been€forced€to€concentrate€their€energies€andÏresources€on€persuading€the€trial€judge€that€their€account€ofÏthe€facts€is€the€correct€one;€€requiring€them€to€persuade€threeÏmore€judges€at€the€appellate€level€is€requiring€too€much.€€Ð ` x` x МӼ,ÓÓÓÌòòÓÓAnderson›€v.€City€of€Bessemer€Cityóó,€470€U.S.€564,€574-75,€105€S.Ct.€1504,€1512,€84Ð P  ÐL.Ed.2d€518€(1985).ÌÌÓ  Óà @ àò òValue€of€the€Barrysðð€Paulownia€Treesó óÐ  ð ÐÓ%0Óà  àAt€trial,€the€value€placed€upon€the€Paulownia€trees€removed€from€the€œBarry›€propertyÏwas€sharply€debated€œand,›€essentially,€came€down€to€a€battle€of€experts.€€As€stated€òòsupraóó,Ð `° Ðthe€Barrysðð€expert,€Corbett,€€testified€to€a€total€loss€of€$12,800€for€the€value€of€the€removedÏPaulownia€trees.€€Not€surprisingly,€the€Coultersðð€expert,€Leake,€€testified€to€œa€much›€lowerÏloss„„$1,960.€€œIn€essence,€these›€values€were€arrived€œat€by›€multiplying€the€estimatedÏamount€of€board€feet€in€the€removed€trees€by€the€value€assigned€to€each€board€foot.€€TheÏœvast€disparity›€in€these€œestimated€losses›€boils€down€to€œthis„„each€expert€estimated€aÏdifferent€number€of€trees€removed,€each€expert€estimated€a€different€figure€as€to€theÏamount€of€board€feet€per€tree,€and€each€expert€assigned€a€different€value€per€board€footÏto€each€tree.›€€œIn€this€instance,€Corbett›€reckoned€œthere€to€be€16€trunks€at€200›€board€feet€perÏœtrunk€for›€a€total€of€3200€board€œfeet.€€Corbett€estimated€each€board€foot€to€be€valued€atÏ$4.00€per€board€foot€for€a€grand›€total€of€$12,800€in€loss€as€a€result€of€the€removal€of€theÏBarrysðð€œPaulownias.€ñÅ ñ›ñÅ ñLeake,›€on€the€other€hand,€judged€œthere€to€be€13€trunks€including›Ïapproximately€75€board€feet€per€tree€for€a€total€of€965€board€feet€at€$2.00€per€board€footÏfor€a€grand€total€of€$1,930€in€loss€as€a€result€of€œsuch€removal.€›ÌÌà  àœAfter€a€careful€examination€of€the€record,€we€find€several›€facts€in€the€record€thatÏcorroborate€œLeakeððs›€valuation€of€œthe€Barrysðð€Paulownia›€trees.€€First,€after€discovering€thatÏher€trees€had€been€cut,€Mrs.€Barry€retained€a€forester,€Mr.€Charles€Riddle,€to€survey€theÏcutting€and€advise€her€as€to€the€quantity€of€lumber€removed.€€At€the€time,€Mrs.€Barry€didÐ  :p59 Ðnot€know€the€property€line€between€her€land€and€the€Coulters.€€Riddle€counted€38ÏPaulownia€trees€that€had€been€removed€œand›€œestimated›€the€loss€to€be€3500€board€feet.€ÏœWhen›€valuating€the€trees€per€board€foot,€this€comes€out€to€approximately€92€board€feet€perÏtree.€€€It€is€imperative€to€note€that€Riddleððs€estimation€of€board€feet€per€tree€is€substantiallyÏcloser€to€Leakeððs€estimation€than€to€that€of€œCorbettððs.›€€To€summarize,€Riddle€estimated€92Ïboard€feet€per€tree;€Leake€estimated€75€board€feet€per€tree;€and€Corbett€estimated€200Ïboard€feet€per€tree.€€This€is€corroborative€evidence€of€the€accuracy€of€the€Leakeððs€valuationÏof€the€trees.ÌÌà  àSecondly,€Johnny€Watkins€testified€as€a€logger€with€25€years€experience€withÏPaulownia€trees.€€Watkins€testified€that€Paulownias€with€wide€grain€wood€were€ð ðworthless.ðð€ÏñÅ ñœñÅ ñœMore›€specifically,€Watkins€stated€that€wide€grain€wood€was€in€reference€to€growth€rings€perÏinch€in€the€wood€œgrain„„the›€greater€the€growth€rings€per€inch,€the€greater€the€value€of€theÏtree.€€œIn€light€of€this,€he›€œtestified›€that€the€trees€cut€off€the€œBarry›€property€were€of€poor€qualityÏwhen€considering€the€growth€rings€per€inch€in€the€grain€of€the€wood.€€œThis,›€too,€isÏcorroborative€of€the€Leakeððs€low€valuation€of€the€Barrysðð€œtrees.›€€€€ÌÌà  àFinally,€it€is€important€to€note€that€Watkins€attempted€to€sell€the€Paulownia€wood€œcutÏfrom€the€Barrysðð€property€to›€a€Mr.€Cubo.€€Cubo€owns€a€golf€course€and€is€in€the€businessÏof€buying€and€selling€€Paulownia€trees€in€the€United€States€and€Japanese€markets.€€œCubo›Ïviewed€the€trees€cut€off€of€the€Barrysðð€property€before€they€were€removed€from€theÏCoulterððs€property.€€œHe›€rejected€the€entire€lot.€ñÅ ñœñÅ ñÌÌà  àIn€light€of€the€above€facts€in€the€record€and€in€light€of€the€weight€given€to€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€of€credibility,€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€$3,860€to€the€Barrys€for€theirÏloss€of€the€trees€is€supported€by€the€great€weight€of€the€œevidence€and,€accordingly,€weÏaffirm€its€judgment€in€this€matter.›ÌÓ  ÓÌœò òñÆ ñÐ 09€48 ÐñÆ ñDamage›€to€the€Barrysðð€Land€Resulting€from€Tree€œRemovalñÇ ñÌñÇ ñ›ÌÓ  Óà  àó óAppellee€argues€ð ðthat€the€record€does€not€contain€any€competent€evidence€fromÐ pÀ Ðwhich€the€trial€court€can€assess€damage€to€the€œBarrysðð€realty.ð𛀀We€disagree.€ò ò€ó óÐ P   ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€there€was€evidence€concerning€the€damage€done€to€the€œBarry›€land€as€aÏresult€of€the€tree€removal.€ñÅ ñœñÅ ñœThere›€was€the€deposition€testimony€of€Plato€Touliatos.€€TouliatosÏis€self€employed€and€owns€a€nursery€and€landscaping€company€called€Trees€by€Touliatos.€ÏœHe›€has€been€in€the€business€of€landscaping€and€forestry€since€1957.€€Touliatos€testifiedÏthat€as€a€result€of€the€logging€œprocess,€the›€Barrysðð€land€was€devalued€by€$2,200€fromÏerosion€and€runoff.€€œIn€removing€the€Paulownias€from€the€Barrysðð€property,€Watkins€usedÏa€508€Caterpillar€log€skidder€which€was€approximately€20€feet€long,€an€18€wheeler,€aÏforklift,€and€2€chainsaws.€€Touliatos›€testified€that€the€damage€associated€with€the€land€wasÏthe€result€of€removing€the€trees€by€skidding€them€off€the€site.€€œMore›€specifically,€he€statedÏthat€the€forest€litter,€which€consisted€of€leaves€from€the€previous€years€that€hadÏaccumulated€on€the€land,€€had€been€removed€thereby€causing€accelerated€erosion€andÏrunoff.€€œTouliatos›€testified€that€it€would€take€90€bales€of€pine€needles€at€a€price€of€$1,881.98Ïin€order€to€stop€the€erosion€and€runoff€and€to€stabilize€the€site€where€the€trees€had€beenÏremoved.€€œTouliatos›€stated€that€this€would€not€change€what€had€occurred€in€the€three€yearsÏfollowing€the€logging€but€would€stop€future€erosion€and€runoff.€€œNot›€included€in€€TouliatosððsÏdamage€estimate€was€the€damage€done€to€surrounding€trees€as€a€result€of€the€logging.€€ñÅ ñœñÅ ñÌÌà  àBesides€the€deposition€testimony€of€Touliatos,€evidence€in€the€record€is€scarceÏconcerning€the€damage€done€to€the€œBarry›€land€due€to€the€logging€process.€€WatkinsÏtestified€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Okay.€€How€much€damage€do€you€think€was€done,€or€howÏmuch€damage€did€you€observe€from€the€cutting€and€removalÏof€the€Paulownia€trees?Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€As€far€as€damage,€none€other€than€just€naturally€removingÏtrees.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÐ  :p59 ЇÓÓà  àCounsel€for€appellee€œcites›€this€Court€to€òòWilliams€v.€Southern€Railway€Co.óó,€396Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€98,€101€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1965)€wherein€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[t]he€measure€of€these€damages,€being€to€real€estate,€wouldÏbe€the€difference€between€the€reasonable€market€value€of€theÏpremises€immediately€prior€to€and€immediately€after€the€injury,Ïprovided€the€cost€of€repairing€the€injury€to€the€property€wouldÏbe€more€than€the€depreciation€in€its€value€as€the€result€of€theÏinjury,€but€if€the€reasonable€cost€of€repairing€the€injury€is€lessÏthan€the€depreciation€in€value,€the€cost€of€repair€would€be€theÏlawful€measure€of€damages.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòWilliams€v.€Southern€Railway€Co.óó,€396€S.W.2d€98,€101€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1965)(citationsÐ à0  Ðomitted).€€œCounsel›€for€œthe€Coulters›€insists€that€the€record€contains€no€evidence€of€theÏdiminution€in€value€of€the€Barrysðð€œproperty€and,›€as€such,€the€record€contains€no€evidenceÏupon€which€the€trial€court€could€award€damages€to€the€real€property.€ñÇ ñœñÇ ñ€Appellees€furtherÏargue€that€if€the€$2,200€figure€that€Touliatos€testified€to€could€be€considered€competentÏproof€of€diminution€in€value,€the€proof€still€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€award€ofÏ$4,081.98.€€œMore›€specifically,€appellees€contend€that€the€most€the€trial€court€could€haveÏawarded€as€damages€under€the€facts€of€this€case€is€$1,881.98„„the€lesser€of€the€cost€toÏcure€versus€that€of€the€diminution€in€value€of€the€land.€ñÇ ñœñÇ ñÌÌà  àTouliatos€did,€in€fact,€testify€to€the€ð ðdevaluationðð€of€the€Barrysðð€land€as€a€result€of€theÏlogging€performed€by€Watkins.€€He€placed€a€$2,200€price€tag€on€this€ð ðdevaluationðð€and€didÏso€based€upon€his€ð ðempirical€appraisalðð€and€his€many€years€of€buying€and€selling€land.€ÏœAlso,€the€$1,881.98€for€the€cost€of€the€pine€needles€was€not€to€heal€the€land€from€the€pastÏharm€done€by€the€logging€process€but€to€stabilize€it€and€stop€the€erosion€and€runoff€at€itsÏpresent€state.€€Obviously,›€the€trial€court€found€Touliatosððs€testimony€concerning€theÏdamages€to€the€Barrysðð€land€to€be€compelling.€€We€agree.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment€awarding€the€Barrys€$4,081.98€for€damages€imposed€upon€their€land€byÏthe€logging€process€undertaken€by€Watkins€and€the€Coulters.ÌÌà  àœOn€a€final€note,›€counsel€for€appellants€insists€that€the€œBarrys›€were€prejudiced€in€thisÏmatter€in€that€both€counsel€for€the€Coulters€and€Watkins€filed€post„trial€memorandumsÏwherein€they€argued€issues€that€œthey›€believed€œthe›€Barrys€failed€to€prove€in€their€case€atÐ  :p59 Ðtrial.€€Appellants€contend€that€the€harm€was€created€when€they€were€not€allowed€anÏopportunity€to€respond€to€the€œCoultersðð›€and€œWatkinsðð›€post„trial€œmemorandums.›€€Counsel€forÏthe€Barrys€beseeches€this€Court€to€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€for€placement€underÏa€different€trial€judge€in€Tipton€County€in€order€to€hear€the€matter€òòde€novoóó€œwithout›€theÐ P   Ðprejudice€of€having€heard€the€case€before.€€ÌÌà  àIn€the€case€under€submission,€œcounsel›€œfor›€the€Coulters€and€Watkins€did€not€file€ñÇ ñœñÇ ñ€pre„¼trial€œmemorandums.›€€In€fact,€at€the€end€of€the€trial€in€this€matter,€œcounsel›€for€the€aboveÏparties€requested€of€the€trial€court€that€they€be€allowed€to€file€memorandums€prior€to€theÏcourtððs€ruling.€€The€trial€court€obliged.€€In€the€meantime,€counsel€for€the€Barrys€had€movedÏhis€place€of€business€without€notifying€opposing€œcounsel›€of€his€change€of€address.€€As€aÏresult,€œ€counsel›€œfor€both€the›€Coulters€and€œthe€Watkins›€sent€copies€of€their€œrespectiveÏmemorandums›€to€counsel€for€the€Barrys€at€his€previous€address.€€Consequently,€counselÏfor€the€Barrys€did€not€receive€the€œmemorandums›€until€after€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€had€beenÏhanded€down.€€Counsel€for€the€Barrys€appeals€to€this€Court€under€the€premise€ofÏfundamental€fairness€and€cites€us€to€no€authority€to€support€his€proposition.ÌÌœà  àIt›€is€unfortunate€that€the€post€office€did€not€forward€the€œmemorandums›€to€counselÏfor€the€Barrys€at€his€new€business€address;€however,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€theÏBarrys€have€not€been€prejudiced€by€this€fact.€€œA€trial€court€does€not€base€its€opinion€on€trialÏmemorandums€but€upon›€the€evidence€laid€down€at€trial€together€with€the€law€of€œthe€state.›€ÏA€trial€memorandum€is€not€evidence€in€and€of€itself€but€is€only€a€rehashing€of€the€issuesÏraised€œat€trial€and›€the€œarguments€therein.›€€Accordingly,€œit€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€theÏBarrys€have€not€been€prejudiced€by€the€above,€and€the›€Barrysðð€request€to€remand€thisÏmatter€to€the€trial€court€with€a€different€trial€judge€œis€denied.›ÌÌà  àIn€summary,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€the€Barrys€$3,860€for€the€lossÏof€the€trees€on€their€property€and€$4,081.98€for€the€damages€suffered€as€a€result€of€theÏlogging€operation€is€affirmed.€€The€Barrysðð€request€to€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€courtÐ 09€48 Ðwith€a€different€trial€judge€is€denied.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€Barrys,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€œÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P   Ðóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àHIGHERS,€J.Ð @  ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð À ÐóóFARMER,€J.Ð ° ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóñ¾ ñÐ pÀ ÐLILLARD,€J.ñ¾ ñÌ›ÌÌà  à€ÌÌà  àÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€à ` àÐ ð@ ÐÌÌÌà  à