WPC< y-Co_I[#[!&X7|![<iX4*Glc 9c?~OZ؊Ɗc* ^[Y[7j.x2 !st7 Gt cX+i_GFS( }$ FuPú29L!94Oߗ 3*xL^PŽ}n8$_̫]k/|O4^ܱ}6$~ȦӦZ5Nki\$Jck01 L@S7(zݐtbWd#$æ{$p1>{Oz6Egtݴ *6q+X3NE8wN}5]W hZܣe[jjm U bb#\ % ^ # 0/ U7N w 4 z  i x mz 0  E   0N 0 0lEQ 0S 05 0 0 0 0 0{ 0T 0* 0 0 0 0d 0+ 0 0 0 0w 0I! 0" 0" 0# 0s$b6% 0n>%U>%% 0D+ ,v,-////Z3Z34444444444444444444444 07777 B88 08 D39 D-9 0K99 AS<:: 0U; 0D; A=<HP LaserJet 4050 Seri0i + (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularuV)+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|xU2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  - -<:Default ParaXXXXXX\  `&Times New Roman  RB2$      4  }  _ @ 0}}Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)providesasfollows:0XX0}   @ 8  8`   #0}X0X#Aftertheplaintiff,inanactiontriedbythecourtwithoutajury,hascompletedthe n presentationofplaintiffsevidence,thedefendant,withoutwaivingtherighttooffer  evidenceintheeventthemotionisnotgranted,maymovefordismissalonthe j groundthatuponthefactsandthelawtheplaintiffhasshownnorighttorelief.The ` courtshallreserverulinguntilallpartiesallegingfaultagainstanyotherpartyhave  presentedtheirrespectiveproofinchief.Thecourtastrierofthefactsmaythen \  determinethemandrenderjudgmentagainsttheplaintifformaydeclinetorender  R anyjudgmentuntilthecloseofalltheevidence;intheeventjudgmentisrendered    atthecloseofplaintiffsevidence,thecourtshallmakefindingsoffactifrequested N   inwritingwithinthreedaysaftertheannouncementofthecourtsdecision. D ` x` x (Emphasisadded).#}0}#(#$  0    l RB2$      1  }  _Whentheplaintiffproducedthecancelled$25,000checkduringdiscovery,_Adcox_Ԁacknowledgedthatthis  portionoftheloantoLane_Detman_Ԁhadbeenfunded.  RB2$      2  }  _0}}T.C.A.473104(f)provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8  8`    Checkmeans(_i_)adraft,otherthanadocumentarydraft,payableondemandand 8 drawnonabankor(ii)acashierscheckortellerscheck....#}0}~#  RB2$      3  }  __N.Y.U.C.C._Ԁ3104(2)(b)isidenticalto_T.C.A._Ԁ473104(2)(b)(1992),whichprovidesasfollows:  8  8`   (2)Awritingwhichcomplieswiththerequirementsofthissectionis:8` x` x   ***    8  8`   (b)a checkifitisadraftdrawnonabankandpayableondemand.H ` x` x _T.C.A._Ԁ473104(1992)wasthepredecessorstatuteof_T.C.A._Ԁ473104(f)(1996),which,aswehavepreviously   stated,alsorequiresthata checkbeaninstrumentpayableondemandanddrawnonabank. { RB2$      6  }  _Ofcourse,iftheelderThompsonstestimonyistobebelieved,_Adcox_Ԁactuallyobservedthefullfundingof  theloantoLane_Detman_ԀattheFebruary20,1998,meeting.  RB2$      5  }  _WhilenotresolvingtheconflictinthetestimonyoftheelderThompsonand_Adcox_ԀastowhetherLane_Detman_  received$35,000cashfromtheelderThompsonin_Adcox_presence,thetrialcourtdidopine [_o]ne_Ԁcanonlywonder t whyMr._Adcox_,suchasuccessfulbusinessperson,wouldwriteacheckfor$60,000.00withoutbeingsatisfiedthatMs. 8 Lane_Detman_Ԁhadreceivedthemoney.(|G2B2$ !.8Xdd8         0  } d(|3v$ !.8Xdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3v$ !.8Xdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Xdd8     _  X8XXdd8  @ GXINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XG #Ԉ &   May8,2001Session L XXX #XXX#RICHARDD.THOMPSONv.HERBERTG.ADCOXXXX  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.99C375W.FrankBrown,III,Chancellor,ByInterchange  6 FILEDAUGUST13,_2001_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200001843_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #XXXi#XXX0XXXXThisisanactiontocollectonacheck.TheplaintiffssuitwasbroughtpursuanttoT.C.A.4729 x  101#XXX0X##0XXXX#0XX0X#0XX0XԀ(Supp.2000),astatutedealingwithdishonoredchecksanddrafts.WilliamAubreyThompson d ( theelderThompson)andhisadultson,RichardD.Thompson( theplaintiff)(collectively P referredtoas the_Thompsons_),agreedtoloanDarleneLaneDetman$60,000.The_Thompsons_ < agreedtomaketheloanbutonlyupontheconditionthatthedefendant,HerbertG._Adcox_,would (x guaranteerepaymentbydeliveringtotheplaintiffapersonalcheckintheamountof$60,000,post d datedtotheduedateofLane_Detman_sobligation.Adcoxagreedandsubsequentlydeliveredapost P datedcheckfor$60,000payabletotheplaintiff.AfterLaneDetmanfailedtorepaytheloanwhen < due,Adcoxstoppedpaymentonhispostdatedcheck.Theplaintiffrespondedbysuing_Adcox_. ( Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelowawardedtheplaintiffajudgmentagainst_Adcox_Ԁfor  $90,378.97.Adcoxappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterred(1)inholdingthat_Adcox_s postdated  checkisa checkasthattermisusedin#XXX0X##XXX*#XXX_T.C.A._Ԁ#XXXJ #0XX0XX0XԀ4729101andin borrowingtheconceptof  aninferenceoffraudulentintentfromthecriminalworthlesscheckstatute;(2)indenyinghismotion  todismissatthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof;(3)inmakinganawardofmorethan$500overthe t faceamountofthecheckinviolationof_T.C.A._Ԁ4729101(d);(4)inexcluding_Adcox_stestimony ` thatLane_Detman_Ԁtoldhimtostoppaymentonhischeckbecausethedealwasoff;and(5)infinding L  thattheevidencepreponderatesthat_Adcox_Ԁactedwithfraudulentintentwhenhestoppedpayment 8!  onhischeck.Weaffirm.#XXX0X ##XXX #XXX $"t!  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt #L# Affirmed;CaseRemanded  $8 $   #XXz#XX.XCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichD.Michael_Swiney_,J., &"& joined.HerschelP.Franks,J.,notparticipating.#XXX}#XXX '"' BarryL.Abbott,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,HerbertG._Adcox_. )$) RobertD.Bradshaw,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,RichardD.Thompson. \+&+ N OPINION #XXX#XXX 4-(- ЇI.      TheelderThompson#XXX#XXX0XXXXisinthetitlepawnbusinessinChattanooga._Adcox_Ԁisanautomobile  dealerinthesamecity.Inearly1998,Lane_Detman_ԀaskedtheelderThompsontoloanher$15,000. t Thelatteragreedtotheloanbutdemandedthattheloanbesecuredby_Adcox_spersonal,postdated ` check.Thethreeofthemmetat_Adcox_soffice.TheelderThompsongaveLane_Detman_Ԁ$15,000 L  incash,whichhecountedoutin_Adcox_spresence._Adcox_ԀgavetheelderThompsonapersonal 8  checkintheamountof$15,000,postdatedtoFebruary6,1998,thedatebywhichLane_Detman_Ԁwas $ t torepaytheloan.WhenLane_Detman_Ԁdidnotrepaytheloan,theelderThompsoncashed_Adcox_s  ` check.Thattransactiondidnotleadtolitigation.  L    OnFebruary20,1998,Lane_Detman_ԀaskedtheelderThompsonforanadditionalloan,this $  timeintheamountof$60,000.Thesecondloanwasthegenesisfortheinstantaction.Theelder   Thompsonapparentlydidnothavethefull$60,000,sohecontactedhisson,theplaintiff,and   togethertheycameupwiththefullamount.Accordingtothe_Thompsons_testimonyattrial,the   plaintiffwastofundtheloanwitha$25,000check,andtheelderThompsonwastoputupthe   remainderoftheloanintheformof$35,000incash.Asapartofthedeal,_Adcox_Ԁagainagreedto p securethetransactionbyissuingachecktotheplaintifffor$60,000,postdatedtoMarch20,1998, \ theduedateofLane_Detman_srepayment.Bothofthe_Thompsons_Ԁtestifiedattrialthattheywould H nothavemadetheloanbutfor_Adcox_spostdatedcheck. 4   TheelderThompson,Lane_Detman_,and_Adcox_ԀmetatthelattersofficeonFebruary20,  \ 1998,toconsummatethetransaction._Adcox_ԀgavetheelderThompsonhispostdatedcheckthatday. H Thecheckwasmadepayabletotheplaintiff.TheloantoLane_Detman_Ԁwasfundedinpartwiththe 4 plaintiffs$25,000check.Thisfactwasnotindisputeattrial.Theremaining$35,000,however,   issharplydisputed.TheelderThompsontestifiedthathebroughtcashof$35,000inabrownpaper   bagtothemeeting,whichcashhehadobtainedfromthevaultathistitleandloanbusiness.He  testifiedthatthecashwascountedin_Adcox_spresence.Therewasnodocumentationofthecash  portionofthetransaction.    _Adcox_Ԁtestifiedattrialthatthe$35,000wasnotcountedinhispresenceandthatheneversaw X  Lane_Detman_Ԁreceiveeitherthecheckorthecurrency.4 2#  1      ׀Lane_Detman_Ԁwastheonlyotherpersonin D! theroom,andshewasnotpresentattrial. 0"    WhenLane_Detman_ԀdidnotrepaytheloanbytheduedateofMarch20,1998,theelder $X" Thompsonphoned_Adcox_,whoaskedforanextensionoftime,whichtheelderThompsongranted. $D # OnMay28,1998,afterhavingtalkedwithLane_Detman_,theplaintiffdepositedthecheck.OnJune %0!$ 2,1998,_Adcox_Ԁstoppedpaymentonthecheck.ThebankinformedtheelderThompson,uponhis &"%  inquiry,that_Adcox_Ԁhadgivennoreasonforhisstoppaymentinstruction.TheelderThompson '#& testifiedattrialthat,bythistime,Lane_Detman_Ԁhaddisappearedand_Adcox_Ԁwouldnotreturnhis  phonecalls.     _Adcox_Ԁtestifiedattrialthathestoppedpaymentonthecheckbecausehebelievedthatthe t loantoLane_Detman_Ԁhadnotbeenfunded.Throughanofferofproof,hetestifiedthathissource ` forthisinformationwasaconversationwithLane_Detman_.Hewasuncertainastothetimingofthis L  conversation.Inadeposition,hehadstatedthatittookplacefourorfivedaysafterhewrotehis 8  postdatedcheckonFebruary20,1998.Aspreviouslyindicated,however,_Adcox_Ԁdidnotstop $ t paymentonthecheckuntilJune2,1998.Whenconfrontedattrialwiththisanomaly,_Adcox_  ` testifiedthathemusthavebeenwronginsayingthathisconversationwithLane_Detman_Ԁhadtaken  L  placefourorfivedaysafterwritingthecheck.  8    Duringthetrial,_Adcox_scounselelicitedtestimonyconcerningtheelderThompsonsseveral   felonyconvictions.Healsopresentedevidencethatthetitlepawncompany,ownershipofwhich   wasclaimedbytheelderThompson,wasinfactinhisdaughtersname.AHamiltonCountyDeputy   ClerktestifiedthattheelderThompsoncouldnothaveobtainedalicensetooperateatitlepawn   businessduetohisfelonyconvictions.TheelderThompsontestifiedthathisdaughterincorporated p thebusinessandlaterconveyedallofherinterestinthecompanytohim. \   Atthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof,_Adcox_Ԁmovedtodismiss.Thetrialcourtdeniedthe 4 motion,statingasfollows:  p 8  8`   Ithinktheinferenceherewithregardtothefactthatthis$60,000 H wasntrepaidbyMs._Detman_Ԁin30days,itwasMr._Adcox_Ԁwho 4 askedforadditionaltimetoseeifhecouldntcollectthecheck.And   Ithinkthatitspossibletoinferthathavingtakenthe$15,000lossas   aresultofanearliertransaction,hedecidedhewasntabouttotake  another$60,000lossandthereforetriedtodotheselfremedything  oftryingtocollectitfromher.Andwhenhecouldnt,hedecidedto  stoppaymentonthechecktoprotecthimself.l` x` x Followingthedenialofhismotion,_Adcox_Ԁputonproof.Uponconclusionofthebenchtrial,the D! courtbelowfoundfortheplaintiff.Indiscussingwhether_Adcox_Ԁhad fraudulentintentwithinthe 0"  meaningof_T.C.A._Ԁ4729101,thecourtanalogizedtoacriminalstatute,_T.C.A._Ԁ3914121, #l! whichspecificallypermitsaninferenceoffraudulentintentifthepersonsigningthecheckfailsto $X" makethecheckgoodwithintendaysafternoticeofnonpayment.Thecourtfoundthatthesame $D # inferencecouldbemadeunderthecivilstatute.Inaddition,thecourtlistedseveralotherfindings %0!$ offactandstatedthatthey &"%   8 ` indicateMr._Adcox_sknowledgeofhisvulnerablepositionandhis (#' efforttotrytogetthemoneyfromMs.Lane_Detman_.Whenhecould )$( notgetthemoneyfromher,hestoppedpaymentonthecheck8.|*%)` x` x  h+&*   8 ` Underallofthecircumstances,thecourtcanonlyconcludethatMr.  _Adcox_Ԁhadfraudulentintentwhenheissuedthestoppaymentonthe  check.` x` x   Thetrialcourtaccordinglyawardedtheplaintiff$90,378.97,brokendownasfollows: ` 8  8`   (1)the$60,000faceamountofthecheck;8 ` x` x 8  8`   (2)$13,873.97asinterestat10%fromMarch20,1998untilthedate  ` ofthetrialcourtsorder; L ` x` x 8  8`   (3)$5asabankservicecharge;and$ ` x` x 8  8`   (4)$16,500asareasonableattorneysfee. ` x` x   II.   ;  Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecord,withapresumptionof \ correctnessastothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderates H otherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); 4  UnionCarbideCorp.v._Huddleston_ ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusions  p oflaw,however,areaccordednosuchpresumption. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d  \ 26,35(Tenn.1996). H   Ourdenovoreviewisalsosubjecttothewellestablishedprinciplethatthetrialcourtisin   thebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsare   entitledtogreatweightonappeal. _Massengale_Ԁv._Massengale_ ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.Ct.  App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).    III. l A. D! @  Theplaintiffbroughtthissuitpursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ4729101(Supp.2000),whichisacivil #l! statutedealingwithliabilityforadishonoredcheck.Itprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: $X" 8  8`   (a)Apersonwho,havingexecutedanddeliveredtoanotherperson %0!$ acheckordraftdrawnonorpayableatabankorotherfinancial &"% institution,withfraudulentintenteitherstopspaymentonthecheck '#& ordraft,orallowsthecheckordrafttobedishonoredbyafinancial (#' institutionbecauseoflackoffunds,failuretohaveanaccount,orlack )$(  ofanauthorizedsignatureofthedrawerornecessaryendorser,is,if |*%) foundliabletotheholderonthecheckordraftinacivilaction,liable  for:` x` x  8  8`   (1)Thefaceamountofthecheckdishonored;t` x` x 8  8`   (2)Interestattherateoftenpercent(10%)perannumontheface L  amountortheremainingunpaidbalanceofthecheckordraftfrom 8  thedateofitsexecutionuntilpaymentismadeinfull;$ t` x` x 8  8`   (3)Anyreasonableservicechargesincurredbythepayeein  L  attemptingtoobtainpaymentbythebankorotherfinancial  8  institution;$ ` x` x 8  8`   (4)Courtcostsincurredinbringingthecivilactionwhichisbrought   bytheholdertocollectonthecheckordraft;and ` x` x 8  8`   (5)Reasonableattorneyfeesincurredbytheholder.p` x` x 8  8`   (b)Thissectiondoesnotapplytoapersonwhohassoalloweda H checkordrafttobedishonoredif,withinten(10)daysafterthe 4 holderhasgivennoticethatthecheckordrafthasnotbeenpaidby  p thefinancialinstitution,thepersonpaystotheholderthefullamount  \ ofthecheckordraft.Suchapaymentiseffectiveforallpurposesas H ofthedateitismade.4` x` x @%***   8  8`   (d)Ifthepersonwhoexecutedanddeliveredthecheckdoesnotpay  totheholderthefullamountofthecheckordraftwithinthirty(30)  daysfollowingcertifiedmailingofwrittennoticethatthecheckor l drafthasnotbeenpaidandthattrebledamageswillbesought,upon X  findingoffraudulentintent,thepersonisliablefor,andthecourt D! shallawardjudgmentfor,treblethefaceamountofthecheckordraft. 0"  However,theamountawardedinadditiontothefaceamountofthe #l! checkordraftmaynotexceedfivehundreddollars($500).$X"` x` x 8  8`   (e)Apersonmustelectwhethertopursuetheclaimeitherunderthis %0!$ sectionorundertitle39,chapter14,part1.&"%` x` x (Emphasisadded). (#'   Initsmemorandumopinion,thecourtstatedasfollows: |*%)  h+&* 8  8`   Theonlyquestioniswhetherthefactsofthiscasecomewithinthe  meaningoftheterm withfraudulentintent.Thereisasimilar  criminalstatuteonchecks._T.C.A._Ԁ3914121 WorthlessChecks  isthecriminalstatutethatisanalogousto_T.C.A._Ԁ4729101.Under t thecriminalstatutefraudulentintentisinferredifthepersonsigning ` thecheckfailstomakethecheckgoodwithinten(10)daysafter L  noticeofnonpayment.Thecourtbelieves,becauseofthesimilarity 8  ofthestatutesandtherequirementthataholdercannotpursueboth $ t thecivilandcriminalstatutes,thatfraudulentintentmaybeinferred  ` fromMr._Adcox_sfailuretopaythecheckafternoticefromthe  L  Plaintiffsattorneys. 8 ` x` x Ѐ  _T.C.A._Ԁ3914121(1997)isacriminalstatute,whichdealswiththeftbywayofaworthless   check.Itprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:   8  8`   (a)Apersoncommitsanoffensewho,withfraudulentintentor   knowingly:p` x` x 8  8`   (1)Issuesorpassesacheckorsimilarsightorderforthepaymentof H moneyforthepurposeofpayinganyfee,fine,tax,licenseor 4 obligationtoanygovernmentalentityorforthepurposeofobtaining  p money,services,labor,creditoranyarticleofvalue,knowingatthe  \ timetherearenotsufficientfundsinorondepositwiththebankor H otherdraweeforthepaymentinfullofthecheckororder,aswellas 4 allotherchecksorordersoutstandingatthetimeofissuance;or ` x` x 8  8`   (2)Stopspaymentonacheckorsimilarsightorderforthepayment  ofmoneyforthepurposeofpayinganyfine,fee,tax,licenseor  obligationtoanygovernmentalentityorforthepurposeofobtaining  money,services,labor,creditoranyarticleofvalue;provided,that l suchmoney,credit,goodsorserviceswereasrepresentedatthetime X  oftheissuanceofthecheckorsimilarsightorder.D!` x` x 8  8`   (3)Thissubsectionshallnotapplytoapostdatedcheckortoacheck #l! orsimilarsightorderwherethepayeeorholderknowsorhasgood $X" andsufficientreasontobelievethedrawerdidnothavesufficient $D # fundsondeposittothedrawerscreditwiththedraweetoensure %0!$ payment.&"%` x` x 8  8`   (b)Forpurposesofthissection,theissuersorpassersfraudulent (#' intentorknowledgeorbothofinsufficientfundsmaybeinferredif:)$(` x` x   |*%) 8  8`   (1)Thepersonhadnoaccountwiththebankorotherdraweeatthe   timethepersonissuedorpassedthecheckorsimilarsightorder;or` x` x 8  8`   (2)Onpresentationwithinthirty(30)daysafterissuingorpassingthe t checkorsimilarsightorder,paymentwasrefusedbythebankor ` otherdraweeforlackoffunds,insufficientfundsoraccountclosed L  afterissuingorpassingthecheckororder,andtheissuerorpasser 8  failstomakegoodwithinten(10)daysafterreceivingnoticeofthat $ t refusal. `` x` x @)B.  8    _Adcox_Ԁfirstarguesthat [t]heTrialCourterredas[a]matteroflawbecausepostdatedchecks   arenotsubjecttotheworthlesschecklaw8.#XXX0X#0XXXXApparently,hisargumentisthattheplaintiffisnot   entitledtotheremediesprovidedforinT.C.A.4729101.Morespecifically,hearguesthata    postdatedcheckisnota checkandthattherefore,theplaintiffcannotrecoverunderT.C.A.   4729101becausethatstatuteprovidesremediesfordishonored checks. p   Adcoxreliesuponthecaseof Statev.Stooksberry ,872S.W.2d906(Tenn.1994)forthe H propositionthat#XXX0X`#0XXXXa postdatedcheckisnota check.#XXX0XDc#0XXXXIn Stooksberry ,thedefendantpurchased 4 cattleonApril13,1990,usingacheckdatedApril15,1990.See id .at90607.Thesellerdeposited  p thecheckonthedatehereceivedit,i.e.,April13,1990.See id .at907.Thecheckwassubsequently  \ dishonoredforinsufficientfunds.See id . H   Thedefendantwastriedandconvictedofissuingaworthlesscheckinviolationofthe   criminalstatute,T.C.A.3914121.See id .at906.Uponappeal,theSupremeCourtlookedtothe   UniformCommercialCodeand#XXX0Xc#0XXXXdeterminedthata postdatedcheckisnota checkwithinthe  contemplationofthecriminalworthlesschecklaw,becausesuchaninstrumentisnotpayableon  demand.See id .at907.However,inreversingthedefendantsconviction,theSupremeCourt  emphasizedthatthecriminalstatute,aspertinenttothefactsbeforeit,dealswithaparticulartime l frame,i.e.,thetimeatwhichtheinstrumentispassed: X    8  8`   Thegravamenoftheoffensedefinedbythestatuteisthe fraudulent 0"  intentwithwhichtheinstrumentispassedoruttered.Theoffense #l! isnotthefailuretopaythecheckafternotice,butpassingthe $X" instrumentwiththethenpresentintenttodefraud.$D #` x` x   *** &"%   8  8`   ...,thepassingofapostdatedcheckdoesnotsubjectthemakerto (#' convictionundertheworthlesschecklaw.)$(` x` x   |*%)  Id .at90708(emphasisadded).Therefore,theSupremeCourtin Stooksberry heldthata post   datedcheckisnota checkforthepurposeofthecriminalworthlesscheckstatutebecause,atthe  timeofthepassingoftheinstrument,itisnotpayableondemand.    Weunderstandtherationaleof Stooksberry ,butwedonotbelieveitresolvesthequestion ` beforeus.Asappliedtotheinstantcase, Stooksberry merelymeansthatonFebruary20,1998!the L  timeofthepassingofAdcoxspostdatedcheck!theinstrumentwasnota checkasthatconcept 8  isdefinedinT.C.A.473104(f)(1996)5 2#  2      ׀becauseitwasnotthenpayableondemand.Unlike $ t  Stooksberry ,whichfocusesonthetimeofthepassingoftheinstrument,theinstantcasefocuseson  ` aneventoccurringsubsequenttothedateoftheinstrument.PriortoMarch20,1998!thedateof  L  Adcoxscheck!theinstrumentinquestionwasnotpayableondemand.However,onandafterthe  8  dateofMarch20,1998,itwaspayableondemand.Thisisbecausetheholderwasatlibertyto $  demandpaymentonandafterthatdate#XXX0Xf#0XXXX.#XXX0Xq#0XXXXSeeT.C.A.473113(a)(1996)( Aninstrumentmaybe   antedatedorpostdated.Thedatestateddeterminesthetimeofpaymentiftheinstrumentispayable   atafixedperiodafterdate.Exceptasprovidedin474401(c),aninstrumentpayableondemand   isnotpayablebeforethedateoftheinstrument.)(emphasisadded);seealso Gentryv.People ,441   P.2d675,676(Colo.1968)( Thefactthataninstrumentispostdateddoesnotrenderitvoid,but p merelydefersnegotiabilitytoasubsequenttime.);#XXX0X5r#0XXXX AlliedColorCorp.v.ManufacturersHanover \ TrustCo. ,484F.Supp.881,883(S.D.N.Y.1980)( Itisclearthatapostdatedcheckisnot,prior H todate,acheckasdefinedinN.Y.U.C.C.3104(2)(b),6 2#  3      ׀sinceitisnotpayableondemand....) 4 (emphasisadded).   p   Hence,whileweagreewithAdcoxthat Stooksberry standsforthepropositionthata post H datedcheckisnota checkunderthecriminalworthlesscheckstatutegiventhefactspresentin 4  Stooksberry ,wedonotbelievethattheholdinginthatcaseprecludestheplaintifffromrecovering   underT.C.A.4729101iftheplaintiffcanprovethatAdcoxstoppedpaymentontheinstrument   withfraudulentintent.     @*@)C.    Asapartofhisfirstargument,Adcoxalsochallengesthetrialcourtsuseoftheinference t offraudulentintentfoundinthecriminalworthlesscheckstatutetosupportitsfinding,byinference, ` offraudulentintentonthepartofAdcox.#XXX0Xu#0XXXXAdcoxappearstobearguingthatbecause thepassingof L  apostdatedcheckdoesnotsubjectthemakertoconvictionundertheworthlesschecklaw,see 8   Stooksberry ,872S.W.2dat908,itwasimproperforthetrialcourtintheinstantcasetoanalogize $ t totheworthlesschecklawtosupportitsfindingthat fraudulentintentmaybeinferredfromMr.  ` AdcoxsfailuretopaythecheckafternoticefromthePlaintiffsattorneys.  L    Viewingtheargumentinthisway,westillfindthisissueadversetoAdcox.Weareofthe $  opinionthat,withorwithouttheanalogytothecriminalstatute,itisnotinappropriateinthiscase   toinferfraudulentintentfromtheactofstoppingpaymentonthesubjectcheckandfailingtopay   thecheckafternoticeofitsnonpayment.Aninferenceisdefinedas [a]processofreasoningby   whichafactorpropositionsoughttobeestablishedisdeducedasalogicalconsequencefromother   facts,orastateoffacts,alreadyprovedoradmitted.BlacksLawDictionary778(6thed.1990). p Acheckiswrittenforaspecificpurpose,i.e.,todirectonesbanktowithdrawfundsfromones \ accountatthatbank.Whenonestopspaymentonacheck,heorsheisthwartingthatwhichheor H shehadearliersetintomotion.ItisundisputedthatAdcoxwroteapostdatedchecktotheplaintiff; 4 itisfurtherundisputedthathestoppedpaymentonthatcheckandcontinuedtorefusetomakethe  p checkgoodafterreceivingnoticeofitsnonpayment.Theproofalsoreflectedthat_Adcox_Ԁaskedthe  \ elderThompsonfor,andreceived,additionaltimewithinwhichtosecurerepaymentoftheloan. H WhenthesefactsarecoupledwiththefactthatAdcoxhadlost$15,000ontheearlierLaneDetman 4 transaction,itwaslogicalforthetrialcourttodeducefromallofthis,evenwithouttheaidofthe   criminalstatute,thatAdcoxactedwithfraudulentintentwhenhestoppedpaymentonhischeck.   Therefore,withoutdecidingwhetherthetrialcourtwascorrecttodrawananalogytotheinference  offraudulentintentfoundinthecriminalstatute,wefindnoerrorinthecourtsdecisiontoinferthat  Adcoxactedwithfraudulentintent.  #XXX0Xz#0XXXX#0XX0X#0XX0X   X  D.  +  Atthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof,Adcoxmovedtodismisshisadversaryscasepursuant  toTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2).1 2#  4      ׀TheSupremeCourtin CityofColumbiav._C.F.W._ԀConstruction t Company ,557S.W.2d734(Tenn.1977),#0XX0X #0XX0X#XXX0Xʅ#0XXXXԀdiscussedtheproperstandardpursuanttowhichatrial ` courtistoviewsuchmotions.Inthatcase,theCourtstatedthat L  8  8`   inthenonjurycase,whenamotiontodismissismadeatthecloseof $ t plaintiffscaseunderRule41.02(2),thetrialjudgemustimpartially  ` weighandevaluatetheevidenceinthesamemannerasthoughhe  L  weremakingfindingsoffactattheconclusionofalloftheevidence  8  forbothparties,determinethefactsofthecase,applythelawtothose $  facts,and,iftheplaintiffscasehasnotbeenmadeoutbya   preponderanceoftheevidence,ajudgmentmayberenderedagainst   theplaintiffonthemerits,or,thetrialjudge,inhisdiscretion,may   declinetorenderjudgmentuntilthecloseofalltheevidence.The   actionshouldbedismissedifonthefactsfoundandtheapplicable p lawtheplaintiffhasshownnorighttorelief.\` x` x  Id .at740. 4   Adcoxarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodismissthecaseatthecloseofthe  \ plaintiffsproof.Morespecifically,hearguesthatthetrialcourterredininferringfraudulentintent H basedonthecriminalworthlesscheckstatuteandinfindingfraudulentintentbasedonfactsthat 4 werenotintroducedintoevidenceuntilafterthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof.     WefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdenialofAdcoxsmotion.Inrulinguponthemotion,  thetrialcourtstatedthefollowing:  8  8`   Ithinktheinferenceherewithregardtothefactthatthis$60,000 l wasntrepaidbyMs.Detmanin30days,itwasMr.Adcoxwho X  askedforadditionaltimetoseeifhecouldntcollectthecheck.And D! Ithinkthatitspossibletoinferthathavingtakenthe$15,000lossas  aresultofanearliertransaction,hedecidedhewasntabouttotake  another$60,000lossandthereforetriedtodotheselfremedything  oftryingtocollectitfromher.Andwhenhecouldnt,hedecidedto t stoppaymentonthechecktoprotecthimself.`` x` x Atthecloseoftheplaintiffsproof,therewasevidenceintherecordtosupportthecourtsfindings 8  thatLaneDetmandidnotrepaythe$60,000,thatAdcoxaskedforanextensionoftime,andthat $ t Adcoxhadincurreda$15,000lossasaresultofanearlier,similartransaction.Theevidencealso  ` showedthatAdcoxstoppedpaymentonthe$60,000checkhehadwrittentotheplaintiff.Aswe  L  havealreadystated,webelieveitisnotinappropriatetoinferfromthesefactsthatAdcoxactedwith  8  fraudulentintentinstoppingpaymentonthecheck.ThetrialcourtsdenialofAdcoxsmotionto $  dismissatthecloseoftheplaintiffsproofwasclearlywithinitsdiscretion.Wethereforefindthis   issueadversetoAdcox.     E.   b  Adcoxnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinawardingtheplaintiff$90,378.97.Heasserts \ thattheawardisinviolationofT.C.A.4729101(d),which,sotheargumentgoes,limitsanaward H to$500overthefaceamountofthecheck.WedisagreewithAdcoxspositiononthismatter. 4   Therulesrelatingtostatutoryconstructionarewellsettled:  \ 8  8`   Issuesofstatutoryconstructionarequestionsoflawandshallbe 4 revieweddenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.ThisCourts   roleinstatutoryinterpretationistoascertainandtoeffectuatethe   legislaturesintent.Generally,legislativeintentshallbederivedfrom  theplainandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguagewhena  statuteslanguageisunambiguous.Ifastatuteslanguageis  expressedinamannerdevoidofambiguity,courtsarenotatliberty l todepartfromthestatuteswords.Accordingly,courtsarerestricted X  tothe naturalandordinarymeaningofastatuteunlessanambiguity D! necessitatesresortingelsewheretoascertainlegislativeintent.0" ` x` x  Freemanv.MarcoTransp.Co. ,27S.W.3d909,91112(Tenn.2000)(citationsomitted). $X"   T.C.A.4729101(Supp.2000)provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: %0!$ 8  8`   (a)Apersonwho8withfraudulentintent8stopspaymenton[a] '#& check8is,iffoundliabletotheholderonthecheckordraftinacivil (#' action,liablefor:)$(` x` x 8  8`   (1)Thefaceamountofthecheckdishonored;h+&*` x` x Ї8  8`   (2)Interestattherateoftenpercent(10%)perannumontheface  amountortheremainingunpaidbalanceofthecheckordraftfrom  thedateofitsexecutionuntilpaymentismadeinfull;` x` x 8      8  8`   (3)Anyreasonableservicechargesincurredbythepayeein ` attemptingtoobtainpaymentbythebankorotherfinancial L  institution;8 ` x` x 8  8`   (4)Courtcostsincurredinbringingthecivilactionwhichisbrought  ` bytheholdertocollectonthecheckordraft;and L ` x` x 8  8`   (5)Reasonableattorneyfeesincurredbytheholder.$ ` x` x @%***   8  8`   (d)Ifthepersonwhoexecutedanddeliveredthecheckdoesnotpay   totheholderthefullamountofthecheckordraftwithinthirty(30) p daysfollowingcertifiedmailingofwrittennoticethatthecheckor \ drafthasnotbeenpaidandthattrebledamageswillbesought,upon H findingoffraudulentintent,thepersonisliablefor,andthecourt 4 shallawardjudgmentfor,treblethefaceamountofthecheckordraft.  p However,theamountawardedinadditiontothefaceamountofthe  \ checkordraftmaynotexceedfivehundreddollars($500).H` x` x   Wethinkthestatuteisclearandunambiguous.Aswereadit,thelastsentenceofsubsection   (d)appliesonlytothatsubsectionanddoesnotlimittheremediesprovidedforinsubsection(a).   Hadthelegislatureintendedforthissubsection(d)limitationtoapplytothespecificremediesinthe  othersubsections,itcouldhavesostated.Itdidnot,andwefindnobasisinthestatutorylanguage  fordoingthatwhichthelegislaturefailedtodobyexpresslanguage.Wefindthisissuetobe  withoutmerit. l   F. D!    `     h      p     Finally,_Adcox_Ԁarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperlyexcludedevidenceshowingthathe #l! stoppedpaymentonthecheckbecauseLaneDetmantoldhimthat thedealwasoff.#XXX0Xo#0XXXX#0XX0X-#0XX0XԀHefurther $X" arguesthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthathestoppedpaymenton $D # thecheckwithfraudulentintent. %0!$   WeagreewithAdcoxthatthetrialcourtimproperlyexcludedAdcoxstestimonythatLane '#& Detmantoldhimtostoppaymentonhischeckbecausethedealwasoff.Tenn.R.Evid.801(c) (#' defineshearsayas astatement,otherthanonemadebythedeclarantwhiletestifyingatthetrialor )$( hearing,offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthematterasserted.(Emphasisadded).Adcox |*%) wasnotofferingthestatementtoprovethatthedealwasinfact#XXX0XS#0XXXX#0XX0X#0XX0Xoff,butrathertoshowthathe h+&* believedittobeoffandthatitwasforthisreasonhestoppedpaymentonthecheck.Hisreasonfor  stoppingpaymentonthecheckisclearlyrelevanttotheissueofwhetherheactedwithfraudulent  intent.Hence,thestatementisnothearsayandshouldnothavebeenexcluded.Cf. Statev.Miller ,  737S.W.2d556,559(Tenn.Crim.App.1987). t   However,wedonotfeelthatthetrialcourtserrornecessitatesareversalofthetrialcourts L  judgment.Tenn.R.App.P.36(b)providesasfollows: 8  8  8`   Afinaljudgmentfromwhichreliefisavailableandotherwise  ` appropriateshallnotbesetasideunless,consideringthewhole  L  record,errorinvolvingasubstantialrightmoreprobablythannot  8  affectedthejudgmentorwouldresultinprejudicetothejudicial $  process. ` x` x Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtmadeextensivefactualfindingsuponwhichitbasedits   determinationthatAdcoxactedwithfraudulentintent.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainst   thesefactualfindings.Moreover,wenotethatAdcoxsofferofproofpresentedthetrialcourtwith p aseriouscredibilityissue.AlthoughAdcoxtestifiedthathestoppedpaymentonthecheckbecause \ hethoughtthatLaneDetmanhadnotreceivedthemoneypromisedbythe_Thompsons_,hewas H uncertainastowhenhereceivedthisinformationfromher.Whentheexcludedevidenceisviewed 4 inthecontextofotherparticularlyrelevantevidence,e.g.,(1)thetestimonyoftheelderThompson  p thatAdcoxwaspresentonFebruary20,1998,whenLaneDetmanreceivedtheplaintiffscheckof  \ $25,000andcashof$35,000;< 2#  5      ׀and(2)Adcoxsdepositiontestimonyreflectingthathewaitedsome H threemonthsafterlearning,forthefirsttimeaccordingtohim,: 2#  6      ׀thattheloantoLaneDetmanhad 4 notbeenfundedbeforestoppingpaymentonhis$60,000check,wearecompelledtofind,based   uponthetotalityoftheproofreceivedintoevidence,thattheexcludingofthesubjectevidence,while   error,didnotinvolve asubstantialright[that]moreprobablythannotaffectedthe[trialcourts]  judgment.    IV. l   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thecaseisremandedforenforcementofthetrial D! courtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costs 0"  onappealaretaxedtotheappellant,HerbertG.Adcox. #l! #XXX0X٬##XXX#XXX $D # Ї   `     h     _______________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE