Home/Court of Appeals of Tennessee/Richard Gause D/B/A Roofworks of Tennessee v. Anice Cole, D/B/A Riverside Shop and Jerry Ogle

Richard Gause D/B/A Roofworks of Tennessee v. Anice Cole, D/B/A Riverside Shop and Jerry Ogle

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided June 5, 1997·No. 03A01-9707-CH-00001·Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED June 5, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. RI CHARD GAUSE d / b / a ROOFWORKS ) SEVI ER CHANCERY Appellate C ourt Clerk OF TENNESSEE, ) C. A. NO. 0 3 A0 1 - 9 7 0 7 - CH- 0 0 0 0 1 ) Pl a i n t i f f - Ap p e l l a n t ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CHESTER R. RAI NWATER, J R. ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) J ANI CE COLE d / b / a RI VERSI DE ) AFFI RMED I N PART, VACATED I N SHOP a n d J ERRY OGLE, ) PART, AND REM ANDED. ) De f e n d a n t s - Ap p e l l e e s )

ROBERT L. OGLE, J R. , Se v i e r v i l l e f o r Ap p e l l a n t .

J EFF D. RADER, Og l e , W n n & Ra d e r , Se v i e r v i l l e , f or Ap p e l l e e s . y

O P I N I O N

M M r r a y, J . c u

Th i s c a s e o r i g i n a t e d a s a n a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e a l i e n f o r wo r k a n d

ma t e r i a l s p u r s u a n t t o T. C. A. § 6 6 - 1 1 - 1 2 6 . Th e p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t

h e h a d f u r n i s h e d e q u i p me n t , l a b o r a n d ma t e r i a l s wh i c h we r e u s e d f o r

i mp r o v e me n t s o n t h e p r o p e r t y wh i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t , Co l e o c c u p i e d a s

l e s s e e a nd t he de f e nda nt , Og l e , wa s a n o wn e r . Th e d e f e n d a n t , Og l e , f i l e d a n a n s we r , ge ne r a l l y s t a t e d t ha t h e o wn e d a n i n t e r e s t i n t he

s ubj e c t p r o p e r t y b u t wa s wi t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t k n o wl e d g e o r i n f o r ma t i o n

t o f or m a be l i e f a s t o t he t r ut h of t he a l l e ga t i ons s e t f or t h i n t he

c o mp l a i n t .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e f e n d a n t , Co l e , f i l e d a n a n s we r a n d c o u n t e r -

c l a i m. I n h e r a n s we r Co l e a d mi t t e d t o h a v i n g a l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s t i n

t he pr ope r t y. Sh e f ur t he r a d mi t t e d t ha t s he ha d e nt e r e d i nt o a n

a g r e e me n t wi t h t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o v i d e c e r t a i n l a b o r a n d ma t e r i a l s t o

r e pa i r t he r oof of t h e b u i l d i n g wh i c h s h e wa s l e s s e e a n d wh i c h wa s

oc c upi e d by a s u bl e s s e e . Th e s u b l e s s e e oper a t e d a bus i ne s s on t he

p r e mi s e s k n o wn a s Ri v e r s i d e Gi f t Sh o p .

In he r c o u n t e r c l a i m, t he de f e nda nt , Co l e , a l l e ge d t ha t t he

p l a i n t i f f b r e a c h e d t h e i r a g r e e me n t a n d f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m t h e l a b o r i n

a good wo r k ma n l i k e ma n n e r a nd t ha t as a r e s ul t t he i nt e r i or a nd

c o n t e n t s o f t h e b u i l d i n g we r e d a ma g e d a n d s h e wa s r e q u i r e d t o p a y f o r

d a ma g e s s u s t a i n e d b y h e r t e n a n t . Sh e s o u g h t d a ma g e s f r o m t h e p l a i n t i f f

i n t h e a mo u n t o f $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . By a me n d me n t s h e i n c r e a s e d h e r d e ma n d f o r

d a ma g e s b y $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 .

1 Su b s e q u e n t l y , t h e c a s e wa s r e f e r r e d t o a s p e c i a l ma s t e r . Th e

s p e c i a l ma s t e r f o u n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a d b r e a c h e d h i s c o n t r a c t by

f a i l u r e t o f i n i s h t h e wo r k a n d b y n e g l i g e n t l y d o i n g t h e wo r k a n d a s a

1 The plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment in which he sought to have the counterclaim dismissed because the property for which counter-plaintiff claimed damages was owned by a third party who is not a party to this action. The summary judgment was by agreement submitted to the Special Master for disposition along with all other matters. The matter was resolved adverse to the plaintiff. The chancellor later confirmed the findings of the master overruling the motion for summary judgment.

2 r e s ul t t h e r e wa s e x t e n s i v e d a ma g e t o t h e b u i l d i n g a n d i t s c o n t e n t s .

He f ound t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f wa s not e nt i t l e d to a j u d g me n t a nd

r e c o mme n d e d d i s mi s s a l o f t h e c o mp l a i n t . On t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m h e f o u n d

t ha t t he c ount e r - pl a i nt i f f ha d s us t a i ne d t he a l l e ga t i ons of he r

c ount e r c l a i m a nd wa s e nt i t l e d to d a ma g e s in t he t ot a l a mo u n t of

$10, 657. 21. Th e s p e c i a l ma s t e r f o u n d t h a t t h e d a ma g e s f o r r e p a i n t i n g

a nd r e c a r pe t i ng t ot a l e d $4, 417. 75.

Ex c e p t i o n s we r e f i l e d t o t h e ma s t e r ' s r e p o r t . Th e c h a n c e l l o r a t

t h e h e a r i n g o n t h e e x c e p t i o n s r e d u c e d t h e d a ma g e s f o r r e p a i n t i n g a n d

r e c a r pe t i ng t o $883. 55. He e n t e r e d a t o t a l j u d g me n t f o r t h e c o u n t e r -

p l a i n t i f f i n t h e a mo u n t of $7, 123. 01. Th e r e ma i n d e r o f t h e s p e c i a l

ma s t e r ' s r e p o r t wa s c o n f i r me d .

Fr o m t h i s j u d g me n t , t h e o r i g i n a l p l a i n t i f f h a s a p p e a l e d p r e s e n t -

i n g u s wi t h t h e f o l l o wi n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w:

1. W e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a d mi t t i n g e v i d e n c e i n t h e h r e c o r d o f wi t n e s s e s ( n o t t h e o wn e r s ) r e l a t i v e t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e me r c h a n d i s e a n d d a ma g e s t h e r e t o .

2. W e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t r e s t r i c t i n g t h e a mo u n t h o f d a ma g e s i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h e p r o o f o f l o s s .

3. W e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r o o f wa s h d e f e c t i v e l y a p p l i e d a n d i n d e t e r mi n i n g d a ma g e s f o r b r e a c h o f wa r r a n t y .

4. W e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a wa r d i n g d a ma g e s f o r h me r c h a n d i s e wh e n t h e a p p e l l e e wa s n o t t h e o wn e r o f t h e me r c h a n d i s e a n d h a d n o c a u s e o f a c t i o n t h e r e f o r .

5. W e t he r t he c our t e r r e d i n h f i ndi ng appe l l a nt l i a bl e f o r d a ma g e t o t h e i n t e r i o r of t he bui l di ng i nc l udi ng c a r p e t i n g , wh i c h wa s t h e o b l i ga t i on unde r t he s ubl e a s e a g r e e me n t o f t h e s u b l e s s e e , La r r y Ut t a m, n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s l i t i ga t i o n .

3 W wi l l e fi rst l o o k t o o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. Ou r s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w i n n o n j u r y c a s e s i s c o n t r o l l e d b y Ru l e 1 3 ( d ) , Te n n e s s e e Ru l e s

o f Ap p e l l a t e Pr o c e d u r e i . e . , " [ u ] n l e s s o t h e r wi s e r e q u i r e d b y s t a t u t e ,

r e vi e w of f i ndi ngs of f a c t by t he t r i a l c our t i n c i vi l a c t i ons s ha l l

be de novo upon t he r e c or d of t he t r i al c our t , a c c o mp a n i e d by a

p r e s u mp t i o n o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e f i n d i n g , u n l e s s t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e

o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s o t h e r wi s e . " To t h e e x t e n t , h o we v e r , t h a t t h e r e i s

a c o n c u r r e n t f i n d i n g o f f a c t b y t h e s p e c i a l ma s t e r a n d c h a n c e l l o r , we

mu s t be g u i d e d b y T. C. A. § 27- 1- 113 a nd t he c a s e s c ons t r ui ng t ha t

s t a t u t o r y e n a c t me n t .

T. C. A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Richard Gause D/B/A Roofworks of Tennessee v. Anice Cole, D/B/A Riverside Shop and Jerry Ogle, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Richard Gause D/B/A Roofworks of Tennessee v. Anice Cole, D/B/A Riverside Shop and Jerry Ogle (Richard Gause D/B/A Roofworks of Tennessee v. Anice Cole, D/B/A Riverside Shop and Jerry Ogle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 27-1-113
Tennessee § 27-1-113