ÿWPCÆ …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµ4ùb U> 0`S ³ UP  w@ R 0JZ 0T¤ 0^ø 0hV 0r¾ 0|0 0†¬ 02 1u U,7 0dcU,ÇU>ó B1±NU6ÿB)5DC^ D3¡ AMÔU*! 0@KE‹v~ÐvÓN AO!Æp 0D6 D/z B©˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Òà~| Ø'É- ù-<èÀ( 9 &Courier Regular(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý3|xQ&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular =D>D?@DABDCDEDFÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ29,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€& XXdÈdÈ7ÑÖ€&ÖÔ€'Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àApril€29,€1996à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÙ€€ÙßL€+.);+'h|` à. `€€LßÌÌÌELEANOR€CREEKMORE€DICKINSON,à à(ÌAND€LOUISE€CREEKMORE€SENATORE,(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àÔ€'ôÔPlaintiffs„Counter€Defendants,Ô€'XÔ(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌWILLIAM€HORTON€BAIN€AND€WIFE,à à(ÌDORIS€M.€BAIN,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àÔ€'ôÔDefendants„Counter€PlaintiffsÔ€'XÔ€(Ì€€€€€Ô€'ôÔand€Third„Party€Plaintiffs/€€€(Ô€'XÔÌà àAppellants,à àà àà à(€€SevierÏChanceryÌÒ € ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.ÏChester€S.€Rainwater,€Jr.,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌVALLEY€VIEW€LODGE,€INC.,à àà à(€€AppealÏNo.€03S0l„9503„CH„00027€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àÔ€'ôÔThird„Party€Defendant/Third„€€(Ìà àParty€Plaintiff/Ô€'XÔAppellee,Ô€'ôÔà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÔ€'XÔv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌWILLIAM€W.€BURCHFIEL,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àÔ€'ôÔThird„Party€DefendantÔ€'XÔ.à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌÌòòÔ€'ôÔFor€Defendants„Counter€Plaintiffsóóà àà àòòFor€Third„Party€Defendants/Third„óóÌòòand€Third„Party€Plaintiffs/Ô€'XÔóóà àà àà àÔ€'ôÔòòParty€Plaintiff„Ô€'XÔAppelleeóó:Ô€'ôÔÌÔ€'XÔòòAppellantsóó:ÌÌPhilip€Nemethà àà àà àà àà àLanning€P.€WynnÌGatlinburgà àà àà àà àà àOgle,€Wynn€&€RaderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSeviervilleÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€'°ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€'ÔÔ€'XÔÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌREVERSED;€CASE€REMANDED€TO€ÌTRIAL€COURT.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓ›à àThis€appeal€presents€for€review€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€determining€the€measure€of€damages€due€theÏgrantee€under€a€covenant€of€general€warranty,€in€an€actionÏagainst€the€grantor€for€breach€of€warranty€of€title€to€realÏproperty.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€determiningÏthe€measure€of€damages€is€reversed.ÌÌà@ àI.ÌÌà àValley€View€Lodge,€Inc.,€the€appellee,€(ValleyÏView),€executed€and€delivered€to€William€Horton€Bain€and€DorisÏM.€Bain,€the€appellants,€a€general€warranty€deed€whichÏpurported€to€convey€to€the€Bains€the€fee€simple€unencumberedÏtitle€to€two€certain€lots€of€land€located€in€Gatlinburg,ÏTennessee.€€The€deed€contained€covenants€of€title,€includingÏthe€covenant€that€"[t]he€grantor€will€forever€warrant€andÏdefend€the€title€thereto€against€all€lawful€claims."€€ÌÌà àSubsequent€to€the€conveyance,€the€Bains€removed€someÏtrees€and€made€excavations€on€the€property€described€in€theÏdeed,€as€part€of€their€plan€to€develop€the€property.€€ÌÌà àEleanor€Creekmore€Dickinson€and€Louise€CreekmoreÏSenatore,€non„resident€adjoining€landowners,€filed€a€suitÏagainst€the€Bains,€asserting€that€a€portion€of€their€adjoiningÏproperty€was€included€in€the€conveyance€to€the€Bains.€€TheÏrelief€sought€was€a€temporary€injunction,€adjudication€of€theÏboundary€line€and€incidental€damages.€€The€Bains,€representedÏby€counsel,€responded€to€the€suit€by€denying€Dickinson's€andÏSenatore's€claim€and,€also,€by€initiating€a€third„party€actionÏagainst€Valley€View€for€indemnity€for€any€loss€sustained€byÏthe€Bains€as€the€result€of€the€suit.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€more€than€one„half€of€theÏland€included€in€the€conveyance€from€Valley€View€to€the€BainsÏwas€owned€by€Dickinson€and€Senatore,€and€established€theÏboundary€line€accordingly.€€There€was€no€appeal€from€thatÏdecision.ÌÌà àOn€the€third„party€action,€the€court€found€thatÏValley€View€had€breached€the€warranty€of€title€and€awardedÏdamages.€€As€modified€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€judgmentÍincludes€$21,300.00,€which€represents€the€pro€rata€portion€ofÏthe€purchase€price,€and€interest€on€that€amount€from€the€dateÏthe€Bains€were€evicted.€€This€appeal€relates€to€only€two€itemsÏof€damages.€€The€Bains€claim€as€error€the€Court€of€Appeals'Ïrefusal€to€include€as€damages€attorney's€fees€and€attorneyÏexpenses€in€the€amount€of€$7,599.23€incurred€in€defending€theÏtitle,€and€Valley€View€claims€as€error€the€award€of€$3,250.00Ïfor€damage€to€the€property€caused€by€the€Bains'€developmentÏactivity.€€ÌÌœà@ àII.ÌÌ›à àAmong€the€most€recent€cases€in€which€this€Court€hasÏdiscussed€the€measure€of€damages€for€breach€of€a€covenant€ofÏtitle€are€òòWilliams€v.€Burgóó,€77€Tenn.€455€(1882);€òòBrown€v.ÏTayloróó,€115€Tenn.€1,€88€S.W.€933€(1905);€and€òòMengel€Box€Co.€v.ÏFergusonóó,€124€Tenn.€433,€137€S.W.€101€(1911).€€Valley€ViewÏcontends€that€those€decisions€resolve€the€issue€in€its€favor;Ïthe€Bains€contend€that,€notwithstanding€those€decisions,€theÏCourt€should€adopt€the€rule€followed€in€most€jurisdictions€andÏinclude€attorney's€fees€in€the€award€of€damages.€€ResolutionÍof€the€issue€will€begin€with€an€examination€of€those€priorÏdecisions.€€ÌÌà àThe€issue€presented€in€the€instant€case€was€beforeÏthe€Court€in€òòWilliams€v.€Burgóó.€€In€that€case,€the€purchaser,Ïafter€giving€the€seller€notice€of€the€suit,€unsuccessfullyÏdefended€a€suit€by€the€holder€of€paramount€title.€€In€theÏpurchaser's€subsequent€suit€against€the€seller€for€breach€ofÏwarranty€of€title,€the€purchaser€claimed€as€damages€the€amountÏexpended€for€legal€representation€in€defending€the€prior€suitÏand€the€amount€of€court€costs€assessed€against€the€purchaserÏin€that€suit.€€In€discussing€those€items,€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€This€brings€us€to€the€errorsÏassigned€by€complainants.€€First,€thatÏthey€were€not€allowed€to€recover€theÏtaxed€costs€in€the€ejectment€suit€as€partÏof€the€damages.€€We€are€not€aware€thatÏthis€question€has€been€passed€upon€inÏthis€State.€€The€authorities€seem€toÏsustain€the€claim.€€See€them€collated€inÏRawle€on€Cov.,€304;€Sedgewick€on€Meas.ÏDam.,€p.€3l5,€òòetóó€òòseq.óó€€And€in€principleÏit€seems€to€us€that€the€claim€should€beÏsustained.€€The€theory€upon€which€theÏcovenantor€is€held€bound€by€the€judgmentÏin€favor€of€a€party€setting€up€aÏparamount€title,€of€the€bringing€of€whoseÏsuit€he€has€had€notice,€is,€that€heÍthereby€becomes€a€privy€in€interest€andÏin€effect€a€party€to€the€action.€€If€heÏfails€to€defend€and€his€covenantee€makesÏthe€defense€properly,€it€would€seem€toÏfollow€logically€that€if€the€covenantorÏis€bound€to€make€good€the€recovery,€thatÏthe€costs€are€as€much€a€part€of€theÏrecovery€as€the€land€itself.€€The€onlyÏway€the€covenantee€could€avoid€the€costs,Ïwould€be€to€surrender€the€possession€toÏthe€claimant€of€the€paramount€titleÏwithout€suit;€but€if€he€do€this,€it€is€atÏhis€peril,€and€it€would€be€unreasonableÏto€require€him€to€do€so.€€We€are€ofÏopinion€that€the€taxed€costs€incurred€inÏa€proper€defense€should€constitute€partÏof€the€damages.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€Upon€the€question€of€counsel€fees,Ïthe€authorities,€according€to€Messrs.ÏSedgewick€and€Rawle,€in€their€respectiveÏworks€upon€the€subject€where€they€areÏcited,€are€shown€to€be€in€conflict,€andÏwe€have€no€reported€decision€upon€theÏquestion€in€this€State.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€If€the€employment€of€counsel€beÏnecessary,€upon€principle€it€is€not€easyÏto€see€why€the€expense€is€not€as€much€aÏlegitimate€part€of€the€damage€sustainedÏas€the€costs€of€the€cause.€€The€commonÏlaw€doctrine,€that€the€services€of€aÏcounselor€are€honorary€and€gratuitous,Ïdoes€not€prevail€in€this€State:€€òòNewmanÏv.€Washingtonóó,€M.€&€Yer.,€79.€€Yet€ifÏsuch€expense€is€put€upon€the€same€groundÏas€the€costs,€the€plaintiff€would€inÏevery€case€recover€his€necessary€counselÏfees€incurred€in€protecting€a€rightfulÏclaim€against€a€defendant,€precisely€asÏhe€recovers€his€costs.€€There€would€beÏsome€justice€in€the€claim,€and€in€someÍStates€and€in€the€Federal€courts€a€taxÏfee€is€in€some€instances€allowed.€€ButÏsuch€fees€have€never€been€allowed€in€theÏcourts€of€this€State.€€It€is€within€theÏrecollection€of€some€members€of€the€courtÏthat€we€have€decided€against€the€claim€inÏa€case€precisely€of€this€character.ÌÌÌÌòòWilliams€v.€Burgóó,€77€Tenn.€at€464„66.€€ÓÓà àThe€decision€inÏòòWilliams€v.€Burgóó€to€treat€attorney's€fees€and€court€costsÏdifferently,€it€seems,€was€based€on€the€"recollection€of€someÏmembers€of€the€Court,"€even€though€there€was€"some€justice€inÏthe€claim"€that€attorney's€fees€be€treated€the€same€as€courtÏcosts.ÌÌà àThe€facts€in€òòBrown€v.€Tayloróó€were€significantlyÏdifferent€from€those€in€òòWilliams€v.€Burgóó€and€the€caseÏpresently€before€the€Court.€€In€òòBrownóó,€a€covenant€againstÏencumbrances€was€breached€by€the€existence€of€a€gardener'sÏlease€of€which€the€purchaser€had€knowledge€and€which€wouldÏexpire€€a€few€months€after€the€date€of€the€conveyance.€€TheÏgrantee's€attorney's€fees€were€incurred€in€a€futile€proceedingÏbefore€a€justice€of€the€peace€to€remove€the€lessee€prior€toÏthe€expiration€of€the€lease.€€In€denying€the€allowance€ofÍattorney's€fees,€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€remaining€question€that€arisesÏis€in€respect€of€the€proper€rule€forÏadmeasurement€of€damages.€€The€trialÏjudge€adopted€as€a€measure€of€the€damagesÏthe€rental€value€of€said€property€for€theÏunexpired€term€at€$8€per€month.€€He€alsoÏallowed€counsel€fees,€amounting€to€$10,Ïincurred€by€Brown€in€a€misdirected€actionÏbefore€a€justice€of€the€peace€to€evictÏthe€lessee€from€the€premises.€€It€wasÏadmitted€on€all€hands€that€the€lessee€wasÏrightfully€in€possession€of€the€premises,Ïand,€of€course,€the€purchaser,€Brown,€hadÏno€right€to€evict€him€until€theÏexpiration€of€his€term.€€It€may€beÏremarked€there€was€no€authority€for€theÏallowance€of€counsel€fees€in€such€a€case;Ïbut,€on€the€contrary,€in€òòWilliams€v.ÏBurgóó,€9€Lea,€455,€it€was€expresslyÏdecided€by€this€court€that€counsel€feesÏare€not€taxed€as€costs,€nor€regulated€asÏto€amount€by€law€in€this€State,€and€thatÏsums€paid€therefor€by€the€covenantee€forÏdefense€in€ejectment€by€adverse€claimantÏare€not€recoverable€from€covenantor.€ÏThis€principle€is€conclusive€of€anyÏallowance€for€counsel€fees€in€this€case.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòBrown€v.€Tayloróó,€115€Tenn.€at€8,€88€S.W.€at€934.€€Even€thoughÏthe€Court€in€òòBrown€v.€Tayloróó,€based€its€decision€regardingÏattorney's€fees€as€damages€on€the€Court's€decision€in€òòWilliamsÏv.€Burgóó,€it€would€appear€that€attorney's€fees€would€not€haveÍbeen€allowed€in€any€event€because€they€were€not€reasonablyÏincurred€in€defending€the€title€to€the€property€conveyed.ÌÌà àIn€an€action€for€breach€of€a€covenant€of€warranty,Ïthe€Court€in€òòMengel€Box€Co.€v.€Fergusonóó,€again,€awardedÏdamages€according€to€the€rule€stated€in€òòWilliams€v.€Burgóó,€butÏagain€chafed€at€the€narrowness€of€the€measure€of€damages.€€TheÏCourt€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]n€view€of€the€reluctance€heretoforeÏmanifested€by€this€court€to€enlarge€theÏmeasure€of€damages€in€suits€of€thisÏcharacter,€we€are€constrained€to€adhereÏto€the€well„settled€rule€alreadyÏexisting.€€Some€cases€of€hardships€may€beÏexpected€under€any€rule.€€The€measure,€asÏwe€now€understand€it,€is€the€recovery€ofÏthe€consideration€money€and€interestÏthereon,€and€the€taxable€costs€of€theÏeviction€suit.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòMengel€Box€Co.€v.€Fergusonóó,€124€Tenn.€at€448„49,€l37€S.W.€atÏ105.ÌÌà àApplication€of€the€œwell„settled,›€but€poorlyÏreasoned,€rule€in€Tennessee€to€the€case€before€the€Court€wouldÍrequire€that€neither€attorney's€fees€nor€the€award€of€damagesÏfor€injury€to€the€property€caused€by€the€grantee's€developmentÏactivity€may€be€allowed€as€damages€in€the€action€for€breach€ofÏwarranty€of€title.€However,€with€regard€to€attorney's€fees,Ïthe€rule€in€Tennessee€is€contrary€to€the€rule€followed€in€mostÏjurisdictions.€€òòSeeóó€21€C.J.S.€òòCovenantsóó€ðð€60,€p.€346€(1990).ÌÌà àThe€rationale€of€the€majority€view€is€expressed€inÏthe€following€excerpt€from€òòWiggins€v.€Penderóó,€44€S.E.€362Ï(N.C.€1903):ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€covenant€of€warranty€is€a€contract€ofÏindemnity,€and,€while€the€usual€rule€isÏthat€the€plaintiff€recovers€only€theÏamount€of€the€purchase€money€andÏinterest,€it€is€held€by€many€courtsÏoutside€of€this€state€that€he€can€recoverÏalso€any€amount€he€is€compelled€to€pay€asÏcosts€and€expenses€in€defense€of€theÏtitle,€so€that€he€may€be€fullyÏindemnified€against€any€loss€by€reason€ofÏthe€breach€of€the€covenant,€providedÏalways€the€cost€and€expenses€so€paid€byÏhim€are€reasonable.€€It€seems€to€beÏconceded€in€some€of€the€cases€that€he€isÏentitled€to€recover€as€a€part€of€hisÏcompensation€or€damages€the€cost€ofÏdefending€the€suit€in€which€the€judgmentÏagainst€him€for€the€possession€of€theÏpremises€was€given,€and€also€thatÏattorney's€fees€may€be€included€when€theÍwarrantor€has€been€notified€of€the€suit,Ïand€requested€or€vouched€to€come€in€andÏdefend€the€title;€and€it€is€held€in€theÏgreater€number€of€cases€that€he€isÏentitled€to€recover€attorney's€feesÏwhether€the€covenantor€was€notified€orÏnot.€€The€reason€for€this€rule,€asÏgathered€from€the€cases,€would€seem€to€beÏbased€upon€the€following€considerations:€ÏIf€the€covenantee€defends€the€suit€inÏgood€faith,€and€with€proper€diligence,Ïwhat€he€does€is€for€the€benefit€of€theÏcovenantor,€and€such€expenses€as€areÏnecessarily€incurred€by€him€are,Ïtherefore,€inseparably€connected€with€hisÏclaim€of€indemnity.€€It€would€be€too€muchÏto€require€the€grantee€in€a€deed€ofÏwarranty€to€decide€at€his€peril€on€theÏvalidity€of€a€title€set€up€in€oppositionÏto€that€which€the€grantor€undertook€toÏconvey.€€By€the€covenant€the€grantorÏagrees€not€only€to€warranty,€but€toÏdefend,€the€title;€and€if€the€covenanteeÏis€compelled€to€make€the€defense,€orÏsuffer€a€judgment€by€default,€he€shouldÏrecover€in€an€action€on€the€covenant,€asÏit€is€a€contract€of€indemnity,€what€heÏhas€thus€been€compelled€to€pay€œout.›€ÌÌÌÌòòWigginsóó,€44€S.E.€at€366.€ÌÌÓӜ̛à àThe€prior€decisions€of€the€Court€notwithstanding,Ïjustice€requires€that€the€grantee€get€the€full€benefit€of€theÏgrantor's€warranty€of€title.€€When€the€grantor€refuses€toÏdefend€the€title,€after€covenanting€to€"defend€the€titleÍthereto€against€all€lawful€claims,"€the€grantee€must€beÏallowed€to€recover€from€the€grantor€all€reasonable€expenses,Ïincluding€attorney's€fees,€in€defending€the€title.€€As€statedÏby€the€Idaho€Supreme€Court,€"the€issue€is€not€one€of€attorneyÏfees€as€such,€but€of€damages€for€breach€of€the€covenant€ofÏtitle€which€merely€happen€to€be€measured€by€attorney€fees."€ÏòòKoelker€v.€Turnbullóó,€899€P.2d€972,€976€(Idaho€1995).€€The€Ïattorney's€fees€which€are€recoverable€as€damages€areÏreasonable€fees€directly€related€to€defending€the€title.€ÏThose€fees€subsequently€incurred€by€the€grantee€in€enforcingÏthe€covenant€against€the€grantor€are€not€part€of€the€damagesÏsustained€as€the€result€of€the€breach€of€warranty.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThis€Court€adopts€the€majority€rule€that€under€aÏcovenant€to€warrant€and€defend€title€the€grantee€may€recoverÏreasonable€attorney's€fees€incurred€in€defending€the€titleÏwhen€the€grantor€had€notice€of€the€pendency€of€the€action€andÏrefused€to€defend.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmith€v.€Boynton€Land€œ&›€œLumberÏCo.óó,›€198€S.W.€107,€109€(Ark.€1917);€òòRieddle€v.€Buckneróó,€629ÏN.E.2d€860,€864€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòWilson€v.€McGowandóó,€234ÏS.W.€17,€18€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1921);€òòEspinoza€v.€Safeco€TitleÍœInsurance›€Co.óó,€598€P.2d€346,€348€(Utah€1979);€œòòBooker€T.ÏWashington›€œConst›œruction€&€Design€Co.›€v.€œHuntington€Urban›ÏRenewal€œAuthorityóó,›€383€S.E.2d€41,€46€(W.€Va.€1989).€€€ApplyingÏthe€rule€to€the€present€case,€the€Court€finds€that€the€BainsÏare€entitled€to€recover€from€Valley€View€the€attorney's€feesÏand€attorney€expenses€in€the€amount€of€$7,599.23€incurred€byÏthe€Bains€in€defending€the€title.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€allowance€of€attorney's€fees€asÏdamages,€the€Court€finds€no€basis€for€inclusion€as€damagesÏ$3,250.00€incurred€by€the€Bains€in€preparing€the€property€forÏdevelopment.€€Though€viewed€as€damage€to€the€property€by€theÏparamount€title€holder,€the€excavation€work€and€removal€ofÏtrees€represented€improvements€to€the€property€voluntarilyÏmade€by€the€Bains.€€It€is€the€general€rule€in€Tennessee,€asÏwell€as€other€jurisdictions,€that€the€value€of€improvementsÏmade€by€the€grantee€on€the€property€conveyed€is€not€properly€aÏpart€of€the€computation€of€damages€for€breach€of€a€covenant€ofÏtitle.€€òòKing€v.€Andersonóó,€618€S.W.2d€œ478,›€œ484€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1980);›€6A€Richard€R.€Powell,€òòPowell€on€Real€Propertyóó€ðð€900[4],Ïp.€81A„149€(1995).€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€inÍawarding€a€judgment€of€$3,250.00€against€Valley€View€forÏdamage€to€the€property€caused€by€the€Bains'€developmentÏactivity.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€allowing€theÏBains€to€recover€from€Valley€View€$3,250.00€for€damage€to€theÏproperty€is€reversed.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏdenying€the€Bains€the€right€to€recover€from€Valley€ViewÏ$7,599.23€for€attorney's€fees€and€expenses€in€defending€theÏtitle€is€also€reversed.ÌœÌà àThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€suchÏfurther€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.ÌÌ›à àCosts€are€taxed€against€the€appellee,€Valley€ViewÏLodge,€Inc.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌœÌConcur:›ÌœÌAnderson,›€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,Ì€€€and€White,€JJ.ÌÌÌÌ