ÿWPC SóFv~xŸ}…WŸ)yóýš­`–N ^Ñ¿…ÙÅ ÙhDÚÈȵÅÊ8A3®Oè0†øIEMyu¥éT&Û”ÑNrð_fÔH!_¯}GÆS—eù‚Àfü –bçÞº;pîëœAôƒh»/–uZ¦ÿÞ-PsÊ1Þ‘!Òœ,LÄ*0äy\>òä/˜‹ì6ð@½±ƒíR=µBù£`ÉœT´Pü3•º{Jg–įŠÏò,c áf°={ï‘wŸ¼ÆJý Þ‹|‹,ƒŒm4~]fï?óì­€¨=sû§$Ÿ+&9?ô;i& šžüÏå§­ØÒfï_TÀV ²mëþ*¼' Ý“/ÈMâb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1UN÷NEGGEOO 0DQQo••••••••••••••••••••b 0ë     B÷÷ 0¤ D3¸ D-ë 0K AScƶ 0¤| 0D  A«d˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»«xv) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-vn)È–¥k2ôÕ¤ ˜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(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó eÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒRR9$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùµò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€previous€twenty€years,€the€Tinkhams€had€built€and€sold€eleven€houses.€€They€used€Mr.€Penix€as€a€realtorÐ ° Ðprior€to€this€transaction€and€have€an€ongoing€relationship€with€him.- ù-(|G2R9$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùµò»»Ô d(|3Ç–$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç–$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼\ý»»»ÔÑ8€aXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î_ \ýÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼\ý»îî_ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€August€6,€1999Ð üL ÐÔ‡XaX»¼\ýÔÌò òÔ#†¼\ý»XXaþ#ÔRICK€RAY€TINKHAM,€òòet€al.óó€v.€R.€JEROME€BEASLEYÔ‡XaX»¼\ýÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€10511€€€€€Clara€Byrd,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02809„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€22,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€involves€the€proper€measure€of€damages€for€breach€of€a€contract€for€real€estate.€€BecauseÐ xÈ  Ðthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€explicit€finding€that€the€value€of€theÐ d´ Ðhouse€at€the€time€of€breach€was€the€same€amount€as€the€contract€price,€and€because€the€properÐ P  Ðmeasure€of€damages€is€the€difference€between€those€two€amounts,€we€must€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÐ <Œ Ðaward€of€damages€to€the€sellers.Ð (x ÐÓ®ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ P ÐReversed€and€Remandedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÔ#†¼\ý»àXaw#ÔÔ€XaX.¼\ýÔÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,€óóÐ Ä Ðjoined.€€William€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.,€dissenting.Ð ° ÐÌJ.P.€Barfield,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€R.€Jerome€Beasley.Ð ˆØ ÐÌJohn€L.€Whitfield,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Rick€Ray€Tinkham€and€wife,€KathyÐ `° ÐAnn€Ô_ÔTinkhamÔ_Ô.Ð L œ ÐÌÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óˆÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ‡ XaXXXaÔà  àRick€Ray€Tinkham€and€his€wife,€Kathy€Ann€Tinkham,€filed€this€action€against€R.€JeromeÐ è$8 $ ÐBeasley,€alleging€breach€of€a€real€estate€contract.€€€After€the€trial€court€found€for€the€Tinkhams€andÐ Ô%$!% Ðawarded€them€$12,000€in€damages,€Mr.€Beasley€commenced€this€appeal.€€For€the€following€reasons,Ð À&"& Ðwe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àOn€May€4,€1997,€the€Tinkhams€entered€into€a€contract€to€sell€their€house€on€Dawn€Place€inÐ „)Ô$) ÐLebanon,€Tennessee€to€Mr.€Beasley€for€$167,000.€€As€part€of€the€transaction,€Mr.€Beasley€providedÐ p*À%* Ð$500€in€earnest€money.€€The€proposed€closing€date€was€July€15,€1997.€€The€agreement€wasÐ \+¬&+ Ðcontingent€on€Mr.€Beasley€obtaining€financing€of€$150,000€and€selling€his€residence€on€RollingÐ H,˜', ÐMeadow€Drive.€€Ð 4-„(-ý÷ Їà  àWhen€it€appeared€that€Mr.€Beasley€would€not€be€able€to€sell€his€house€within€the€contractualÐ ° Ðtime€period,€Marty€Penix,€a€realtor€who€represented€both€the€Tinkhams€and€Mr.€Beasley,€suggestedÐ œì Ðthat€the€Tinkhams€purchase€Mr.€Beasleyððs€home€so€he€could€close€on€theirs.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€July€10,€1997,€theÐ ˆØ ÐTinkhams€entered€into€a€contract€in€which€they€agreed€to€pay€Mr.€Beasley€$15,315.99€for€the€equityÐ tÄ Ðin€his€home€and€to€assume€his€loan€of€$68,184.01.€€Closing€was€set€for€July€31,€1997.€€An€addendumÐ `° Ðto€that€contract€stated:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àPurchase€of€Rolling€Meadow€1045€is€part€of€2€step€package€deal/€Jerome€BeasleyÐ $ t Ðpurchasing€398€Dawn€Place!€Closing€of€this€property€same€date€as€Dawn€Place,€onÐ  ` Ðor€before€7„31„97.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌMr.€Beasley€signed€the€addendum.€€As€part€of€this€transaction,€the€Tinkhams€paid€$500€in€earnestÐ Ô$  Ðmoney.Ð À  ÐÌà  àMr.€Beasley€did€not€appear€for€the€closing,€although€his€loan€had€been€approved.€€The€realÐ ˜è  Ðestate€agent€sent€him€the€following€letter€on€August€1:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àDear€Jerome€Beasley,Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àWe€have€called,€paged€&€left€messages€for€you€to€contact€us!€We€are€in€a€direÐ 4„ Ðsituation€concerning€your€closing!€€We€are€not€only€going€to€lose€the€deals€on€DawnÐ  p Ðand€Rolling€Meadows,€but€the€builders,€the€Tinkhams,€are€contacting€their€attorneyÐ  \ Ðto€file€suit€for€damages!€€You€need€to€meet€with€us€as€soon€as€possible€to€go€overÐ øH Ðthis.€€Call€me€at€.€.€.€.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€realtor,€when€Mr.€Beasley€resurfaced,€he€stated€that€he€could€no€longerÐ ¼  Ðpurchase€the€Tinkhamððs€house€because€his€ex„wife€had€moved€back€to€her€parentsðð€house.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðtransaction€never€closed.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Tinkhams€waited€over€a€week€and€then€put€the€Dawn€Place€house€back€on€the€market.€Ð l¼ ÐThey€sold€it€at€auction€in€December€1997€for€$155,000.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€Tinkhams€filed€a€civil€warrant€in€General€Sessions€Court€against€Mr.€Beasley€onÐ 0"€  ÐDecember€31,€1997€seeking€damages€for€breach€of€contract.€€The€General€Sessions€Court€heard€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€and,€on€July€31,€1998,€informed€the€parties€of€its€conclusion€that€Mr.€Beasley€had€breachedÐ $X" Ðthe€contract.€€The€court€found€that€ð ðthe€evidence€is€clear€that€the€parties€continued€to€work€towardÐ ô$D # Ðthe€sale€of€the€house€afterðð€July€31.€€It€held€that€the€measure€of€damages€was€the€difference€betweenÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€contract€price€and€$155,000,€and€awarded€the€Tinkhams€$12,000.Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àMr.€Beasley€appealed€this€holding€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Wilson€County€and€filed€aÐ ° Ðâ âcounterclaim€seeking€the€$500€in€earnest€money€he€had€expended.€€The€case€was€tried€òòde€novoóó.€€Ð œì ÐAfter€hearing€the€evidence,€the€Circuit€Court€specifically€found€ð ðthe€value€[of€the€Dawn€PlaceÐ ˆØ Ðresidence]€to€be€$167,000.ðð€€The€Tinkhams€were€awarded€damages€of€$12,000.€€€Mr.€Beasley€appealsÐ tÄ Ðthe€judgment€and€the€trial€courtððs€calculation€of€damages.Ð `° ÐÌà@´´)ìàI.ˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àMr.€Beasley€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€the€damages.€€He€maintains€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€proper€measure€of€damages€is€the€contract€price€less€the€fair€market€value€at€the€time€of€theÐ ü L  Ðbreach.€€According€to€Mr.€Beasley,€the€contract€price€here€was€the€same€as€the€fair€market€value,€soÐ è 8  Ðonly€nominal€damages€were€appropriate.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€constrained€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d)€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðrequires€us€to€analyze€findings€of€fact€òòð ðde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€byÐ ˜è  Ða€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)'s€presumption€of€correctness€requires€appellate€courts€to€deferÐ \¬ Ðto€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact.€òòSee€Taylor€v.€Trans€Aero€Corp.óó,€924€S.W.2d€109,Ð H˜ Ð112€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1995);€òòWeaver€v.€Nelmsóó,€750€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð 4„ ÐApp.1987).€Because€of€the€presumption,€an€appellate€court€is€bound€to€leave€a€trialÐ  p Ðcourt's€findings€of€fact€undisturbed€unless€the€court€determines€that€the€aggregateÐ  \ Ðweight€of€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€a€finding€of€fact€other€than€the€one€foundÐ øH Ðby€the€trial€court€is€more€probably€true.€òòSee€Estate€of€Haynes€v.€Bradenóó,€835€S.W.2dÐ ä4 Ð19,€20€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1992)€(holding€that€an€appellate€court€is€bound€to€respect€aÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court's€findings€if€it€cannot€determine€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ ¼  Ðotherwise).€€Thus,€for€the€evidence€to€preponderate€against€a€trial€court's€finding€ofÐ ¨ø Ðfact,€it€must€support€another€finding€of€fact€with€greater€convincing€effect.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌòòThe€Realty€Shop,€Inc.€v.€RR€Westminster€Holding,€Inc.óó€7€S.W.3d€581,€596€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€purpose€of€assessing€damages€in€a€breach€of€contract€action€is€to€make€nonbreachingÐ D!” Ðparties€whole:€to€place€the€injured€party€ð ðin€the€same€position€he€[or€she]€would€have€been€in€hadÐ 0"€  Ðthe€contract€been€performed.ðð€òòHennessee€v.€Wood€Group€Enter.,€Inc.óó,€816€S.W.2d€35,€37€(Tenn.Ð #l! ÐApp.1991);€òòsee€Hiller€v.€Haileyóó,€915€S.W.2d€800,€805€(Tenn.€App.1995).€€However,€the€injured€partyÐ $X" Ðð ðshould€not€profit€by€the€defendant's€breach.ðð€€òòHennessee,€óó816€S.W.2d€at€37.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€òòTurner€v.€Benson,óó€672€S.W.2d€752,€754„55€(Tenn.1984),€the€Supreme€Court€enunciatedÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€proper€standard€for€ascertaining€damages€for€breach€of€a€real€estate€contract:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à[The]€general€rule€and€proper€measure€of€damages€available€to€a€vendor€as€againstÐ )à$( Ða€breaching€vendee€in€a€real€estate€transaction€is€that€the€vendor€is€entitled€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdifference€between€the€contract€price€and€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€at€theÐ h+¸&* Ðtime€of€the€breach.€€77€Am.Jur.2d€òòVendor€&€Purchaseróó€ðð€489€(1975);€€92€C.J.S.Ð ° ÐòòVendor€&€Purchaseróó€ðð537€(1955);€€see€also€Annot.,€52€A.L.R.€1511€(1928).€ÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌð ðThe€fair€market€value€of€realty€is€the€price€a€reasonable€buyer€would€pay€if€he€were€willing€to€buyÐ tÄ Ðbut€did€not€have€to€and€that€a€willing€seller€would€accept€if€he€were€willing€to€sell€but€did€not€haveÐ `° Ðto.ðð€€òòNashville€Hous.€Auth.€v.€Cohen,óó€541€S.W.2d€947,€950€(Tenn.€1976).€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðIððm€finding€the€value€to€be€$167,000,Ð $ t Ðbecause€that€was€the€amount€of€the€contract,€and€the€damages€to€be€$12,000.ðð€€€Unfortunately€for€theÐ  ` ÐTinkhams,€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€valuation€of€the€house.€€òòSeeÐ ü L  ÐóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Kathy€Tinkham€testified€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€house€wasÐ è 8  Ð$167,000,€although€she€also€stated€that€the€house€had€been€appraised€at€$171,000.€€The€real€estateÐ Ô$  Ðagent,€Mr.€Penix,€agreed€that€he€felt€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€was€$167,000.€€ThisÐ À  Ðevidence€is€not€inconsistent€with€the€rule€requiring€that€the€fair€market€value€be€measured€from€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdate€of€the€breach.€€òòSee€Turneróó,€672€Ô#†XaXX XaÖ #ÔÔ‡XaXXXaÔS.W.2dÔ#†XaXXXaŒ.#ÔÔ‡ XaXXXaÔ€at€754.€€€The€fact€that€the€house€sold€for€$155,000€in€aÐ ˜è  Ðforced€sale€at€auction€some€four€months€later€does€not€undermine€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€toÐ „Ô  Ðvalue€the€home€at€less€than€$167,000€because,€as€€Mrs.€Tinkham€testified,€one€would€expect€thatÐ pÀ Ðproperty€sold€at€auction€would€bring€a€lower€price.€€òòSee€Turneróó,€672€Ô#†XaXX XaÔ.#ÔÔ‡XaXXXaÔS.W.2dÔ#†XaXXXa0#ÔÔ‡ XaXXXaÔ€at€755€(inferring€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€sales€price€of€property€sold€in€a€forced€sale€at€auction€might€not€be€a€reliable€measure€of€the€fairÐ H˜ Ðmarket€value).€€Because€the€evidence€that€the€value€of€the€house€was€$167,000€is€essentiallyÐ 4„ Ðundisputed,€this€court€is€clearly€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€valuation.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€award€of€$12,000€in€damages€after€valuing€the€property€at€$167,000€cannotÐ øH Ðbe€sustained€when€the€proper€measure€of€damages€is€applied€to€the€facts€as€found€by€the€court.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðundisputed€measure€of€damages€is€the€difference€between€the€fair€market€value€and€the€contractÐ Ð  Ðprice.€€òòSee€Turneróó,€672€Ô#†XaXX Xaå0#ÔÔ‡XaXXXaÔS.W.2dÔ#†XaXXXa+4#ÔÔ‡ XaXXXaÔ€at€754„55.€€Based€upon€the€facts€as€found€by€the€trial€court,€the€fairÐ ¼  Ðmarket€value,€like€the€contract€price,€was€$167,000.€€Obviously,€the€difference€between€those€twoÐ ¨ø Ðfigures€is€0,€not€$12,000.€€Because€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€unquestionably€supports€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourtððs€factual€finding€on€the€value€of€the€house,€we€are€constrained€to€uphold€that€finding.€€òòSeeóóÐ €Ð ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€law€clearly€prohibits€us€from€independentlyÐ l¼ Ðfinding€that€the€value€of€the€house€was€less€than€the€amount€found€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSee€The€RealtyÐ X ¨ ÐShop,€Inc.óó,7€S.W.3d€at€596.€€The€trial€courtððs€factual€finding€on€the€valuation€of€the€property€leavesÐ D!” Ðus€with€no€legal€or€factual€basis€for€awarding€damages€to€the€Tinkhams.€€Thus,€we€must€reverse€theÐ 0"€  Ðtrial€courtððs€decision€to€award€the€Tinkhams€$12,000.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€this€finding,€we€need€not€reach€Mr.€Beasleyððs€contention€that€because€Mrs.Ð ô$D # ÐTinkham€testified€that€time€was€of€the€essence,€the€contract€was€unenforceable€because€it€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðexpired.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÐ  ¤(ô#' Ðà@••)ìàII.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€anyÐ ˆØ Ðfurther€proceedings€which€may€be€necessary.€Ô#†XaXX Xas4#ÔÔ‡XaXXXaÔ€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€to€be€taxed€to€the€Tinkhams,Ð tÄ Ðfor€Ó*S,X„Xz –X°œX*ÓÔ#†XaXXXa®:#ÔÔ‡XaXXXaÔwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†XaXXXai;#ÔÐ `° ÐÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà × àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à_____________________________________Ð  ` Ðà ½ àà  àà × àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE