FILED

March 4, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

J EFFREY KEI TH PHI LLI PS a nd ) WASHI NGTON CI RCUI T

J ENNI FER PHI LLI PS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9509- CV- 00298

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. G. RI CHARD J OHNSON

 ) J UDGE BY I NTERCHANGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

EUGENE RUSSELL, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

 )

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

TI MOTHY S. BELI SLE, Ande r s on, Fuga t e , Gi ve ns , Count s , & Be l i s l e ,

J ohns on Ci t y, f or Appe l l a nt .

ROBERT J . J ESSEE, J ohns on Ci t y, f or Appe l l e e s .

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J .
1

For simplicity, the parties will be referred to in the capacity in which they

appeared in the trial court.

2

The pa r t i e s t o t hi s a ppe a l e nt e r e d i nt o a c ont r a c t whe r e by t he

a ppe l l a nt wa s t o c ons t r uc t a home f or t he a ppe l l e e s . Pr obl e ms

de ve l ope d be t we e n t he pa r t i e s whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a n a c t i on by t he

pl a i ntif f s - a ppe lle e s t o r e c ove r da ma ge s f r om t he de f e nda nt -

a ppe l l a nt f or de f e c t i ve wor kma ns hi p i n t he c ons t r uc t i on a nd t o

r e move a c l oud f r om the i r title r e s ulting f r om a lie n f ile d by the

de f e nda nt . The de f e nda nt f i l e d a c ount e r c l a i m a ga i ns t the

pl a i ntif f s a nd a c r os s - c l a i m a ga i ns t Shi r l e y G. Hughe s . Shi r l e y

Hughe s wa s t r us t e e unde r a de e d of t r us t e xe c ut e d by t he pl a i nt i f f s

t o s ecur e pa yme nt of a pr omi s s or y not e i n t he a mount of $80, 000. 00.

pa ya bl e t o El i z a be t ht on Sa vi ngs a nd Loa n As s oc i a t i on. 1

I n hi s c ount e r c l a i m, t he de f e nda nt s ought t o r e c ove r t he

unpa i d ba l a nce of t he cont r act pr i ce pl us addi t i ona l s ums he

c l a i ms t o ha ve e xpe nde d i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he hous e . He

a lle ge s tha t he is e ntitle d to r e c ove r f r om the pl a i ntif f s on the

t he or y of qua nt um me r ui t . No r e c ove r y i s s ought a ga i ns t t he c r os s -

de f e nda nt .

Af t e r a be nc h t r i a l t he c our t r e s ol ve d t he i s s ue s i n f a vor of

t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd a wa r de d j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he de f e nda nt i n t he

a mount of $3, 412. 69. Fr om t hi s j udgme nt t he de f e nda nt ha s a ppe a l e d

a nd pr e s e nt s t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue s f or our c ons i de r a t i on:
2

T.C.A. § 62-6-103 was amended in 1994. The text set out here is the text as

it existed before the 1994 amendment.

3

1. Whe t he r t he c onduc t of t he pl a i nt i f f s , i n pe r -

mitting t he de f e nda nt t o c ont i nue wor k on pl a i nt i f f s ’ hous e de s pi t e pe r c e i ve d de vi a t i ons f r om t he

c ont r act a nd i n not a l l owi ng t he de f e nda nt s uf f i -

c i e nt oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t t he de f e c t s a f t e r

not i c e tha t the pl a i ntif f s ’ int e nde d to withhol d

pa yme nt unt i l t he de f ect s we r e cor r ect e d, s houl d

pr e c l ude t he m f r om pr e va i l i ng a ga i ns t t he de f e nda nt .

2. Whe t he r t he t r i a l c our t e r r e d i n a wa r di ng j udgme nt

t o pl a i ntif f s whe r e t he evi de nce f a i l e d t o es t a blis h pl a i ntif f ’ s ’ e ntitleme nt to judgme nt .

3. Whe t he r de f e nda nt i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a ga i ns t

t he pl a i ntif f s .

We will f i r s t c ons i de r the thi r d is s ue . It is undi s put e d tha t

t he de f e nda nt - c ount e r - pl a i nt i f f wa s not a l i cens e d cont r act or .

T. C. A. § 62- 6- 103 pr ovi de s i n pe r t i ne nt pa r t a s f ol l ows :

2

62- 6- 103. Li cens e requi reme nt - Recovery of expe ns e s

by unl i cens e d cont r ac t or . (a )(1) Any pe r s on, f i r m or

c or por a t i on e nga ge d i n c ont r a c t i ng i n t hi s s t a t e s ha l l be

r e qui r e d t o s ubmi t e vi de nc e t ha t s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or

c or por a t i on i s qua l i f i e d t o e nga ge i n c ont r a c t i ng, a nd

s ha l l be l i c e ns e d a s he r e i na f t e r pr ovi de d. I t i s unl a wf ul

f or a ny pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on t o e nga ge i n or of f e r

t o e nga ge i n c ont r a c ting in the s t a t e , u nl e s s s uc h

pe r s on, fi r m or c or por a t i on ha s be e n dul y l i c e ns e d unde r

t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s c ha pt e r , a s he r e i na f t e r pr ovi de d.

Any pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on e nga ge d i n c ont r a c t i ng,

i nc l udi ng s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on t ha t e nga ge s

i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of r e s i de nc e s or dwe l l i ngs c ons t r uc t e d on pr i va t e pr ope r t y f or t he pur pos e of r e s a l e ,

l eas e , r e nt or a ny ot he r s i mi l a r pur pos e , s ha ll be

r e qui r e d t o s ubmi t e vi de nc e t ha t s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or

c or por a t i on is qua l i f i e d t o e nga ge i n c ont r a c t i ng a nd/ or

bui l di ng, a nd s ha l l be l i c e ns e d. I t i s unl a wf ul f or a ny
4

pe r s on, f i r m, or c or por a t i on t o e nga ge i n, or of f e r t o

e nga ge i n, c ont r a c t i ng or bui l di ng a s he r e i na bove

de s c r i be d, unl e ss s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on ha s

been dul y l i c e ns e d unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s c ha pt e r .

* * * *

( c ) Any unl i c e ns e d c ont r a c t or c ove r e d by t he

pr ovi s i ons of t hi s cha pt e r s ha l l be pe r mi t t e d i n a c our t

of e qui t y t o r e c ove r a c t ua l doc ume nt e d e xpe ns e s onl y upon

a s howi ng of c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng pr oof .

To a voi d t he c ons e que nc e s of t hi s s t a t ut e , t he de f e nda nt

t he or i zes t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s a r e e s t oppe d f r om a s s e r t i ng t he

unl i c e ns e d s t a t us of t he de f e nda nt . De f e nda nt ins i s t s tha t the

pl a i nt i f f s ' a c t i ons i n a l l owi ng hi m t o go f or wa r d knowi ng t ha t he

wa s unl i c e ns e d c r e a t e d a n e s t oppe l . No a ut hor i t y i s c ite d t o us

a nd we ha ve f ound none whe r e by e s t oppe l c a n be s uc c e s s f ul l y i nvoke d

t o de f e a t t he pur pos e s of t he a bove s t a t ut e . Eve r yone i s pr e s ume d

t o know t he l a w. Da vi s v. Me t r opol i t a n Gove r nme nt of Na s hvi l l e ,

620 S. W. 2d 532 ( Te nn. App. 1981) . The r e f or e , t he de f e nda nt i s

c ha r geabl e wi t h t he knowl e dge t ha t he c oul d r e c ove r no mor e t ha n

t he s t a t ut e a llows , i.e . , a c t ua l doc ume nt e d e xpe ns e s a nd t he n, and

onl y t he n, upon a s howi ng, by c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng pr oof , t ha t he

i nc ur r e d t he e xpe ns e s . To hol d ot he r wi s e woul d be t o cr eat e a

j udi c i a l e xc e pt i on t o t he s t a t ut e whi c h we a r e unwi l l i ng t o do. We

hol d t ha t e s t oppe l doe s not a ppl y unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s of t hi s

cas e .
5

As doc ume nt e d pr oof , t he de f e nda nt of f e r e d i nt o e vi de nc e

c hecks i n t he t ot a l a mount of $88, 774. 32, whi c h he c l a i ms r e -

pr e s e nt e d moni e s e xpe nde d on t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ hous e . I n Br a ndon v.

Wr i ght , 838 S. W. 2d 532 ( Te nn. App. 1992) , i t wa s e s t a bl i s he d t ha t

cancel e d checks and i nvoi c e s c oul d c ons t i t ut e " a de qua t e doc ume nt e d

e xpe ns e s ... upon a s howi ng of c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . " The

c our t in Br a ndon, c iting Wilc he r v. Br a dl e y, 708 S. W. 2d 407 ( Te nn.

App. 1985) , s t a t e d: " ' Cl e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e ' a s r e qui r e d

by T. C. A. § 62- 6- 103( c ) i s ' t ha t me a s ur e or de gr e e of pr oof whi c h

will pr oduc e i n t he mi nd of t he t r i e r of f a c t a fi r m be l i e f or

c onvi c t i on a s t o t he t r ut h of t he a l l e ga t i ons t o be e s t a bl i s he d. ' "

I n t hi s c a s e , we a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he e vi de nc e

pr e s e nt e d by t he de f e nda nt doe s not me e t t he t e s t . On ma ny of t he

c hecks the " me mo" or " f or " bl a nk ha s , e ve n t o a n unt r a i ne d e ye ,

been f i l l e d by a di f f e r e nt ha nd a nd a di f f e r e nt c ol or e d i nk t hus

c a s t i ng s us pi c i on upon t he i r a ut he nt i c i t y. Fur t he r t he r e we r e no

ma t c hi ng i nvoi c e s c or r e l a t i ng t o t he c he c ks . The c ount e r - pl a i nt i f f

ha s f a ile d to me e t hi s bur de n of pr oof . We f i nd t ha t t he de f e nda nt

i s not e nt i t l e d t o a mone t a r y j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he pl a i nt i f f s .

Ha vi ng de c i de d t he i s s ue whi c h r e qui r e s t he a ppl i c a t i on of t he

"cl ear a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e " r ul e , we wi l l c ons i de r t he

r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s t oge t he r . I n de c i di ng t he s e i s s ue s , we a r e bound
6

by t he pr ovi s i ons of Rul e 13( d) , T. R. A. P. i.e . , "[u ] nl e ss ot he r wi s e

r e qui r e d by s t a t ut 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 vil a c tions s ha ll be de novo upon t he r e c or d of t he t r i a l

c our t , a c c ompa ni e d by a pr e s umpt i on of t he c or r e c t ne s s of t he

f i ndi ng, unl e s s t he pr e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e i s ot he r wi s e . "

I n a de novo r e vi e w, t he pa r t i e s ar e ent i t l e d t o a r eexa mi na t i on of

t he whol e ma t t e r of l a w a nd f a c t a nd t hi s c our t s houl d r e nde r t he

j udgme nt wa r r a nt e d by t he l a w a nd e vi de nc e . Thor nbur g v. Cha s e ,

606 S. W. 2d 672 ( Te nn. App. 1980) ; Ame r i c a n Bui l di ngs Co. v. Whi t e ,

640 S. W. 2d 569 ( Te nn. App. 1982) ; Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e

Pr oc e dur e , Rul e 36.

The tr i a l c our t f ound t ha t t he de f e nda nt c ons t r uc t e d t he hous e

i n a n unwor kma nl i ke ma nne r be l ow t he s t a nda r d of t he c ons t r uc t i on

a r t a nd br e a c he d hi s c ont r a c t a nd wa r r a nt i e s t o t he pl a i nt i f f .

Accept i ng the tr i a l c our t ' s f i ndi ngs a s t r ue , t hos e f i ndi ngs a l one

do not e nt i t l e t he pl a i nt i f f s ' t o a j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he de f e nda nt .

I t i s e s t a bl i s he d l a w t ha t a pa r t y t o a c ons t r uc t i on c ont r a c t

i s unde r a n obl i ga t i on t o gi ve not i c e of pe r c e i ve d de f e c t s or

de vi a t i ons f r om t he cont r act s peci f i cat i ons . Se e Mc Cl a i n v.

Ki mbr ough Cons t . Co. , I nc . , 806 S. W. 2d 194 ( Te nn. App. 1990) . I t

i s f ur t he r e s t a bl i s he d t ha t a pa r t y i s unde r a dut y t o pr ovi de a

r eas ona bl e oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t t he de f e c t i ve wor k be f or e
7

t e r mi na ting t he cont r act . I d., a t 199. See al s o Ca r t e r v.

Kr ue ge r , a n unpublis he d opi ni on ( t o be publ i s he d) of t hi s c our t ,

pe r mi s s i on t o a ppe a l de ni e d Fe br ua r y 5, 1996.

I n Ca r t e r , t hi s c our t de ni e d r e l i e f t o a pr ope r t y owne r who

f a ile d t o gi ve not i c e a nd a n oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t de f ect s i n t he

c ons t r uc t i on of a c omme r c i a l bui l di ng. Quot i ng f r om Mc Cl a i n,

s upr a , t hi s c our t s a i d:

 Re qui r i ng not i c e i s a s ound r ul e de s i gne d t o a l l ow

t he de f a ul t i ng pa r t y t o r e pa i r t he de f e c t i ve wor k, t o

r e duc e t he da ma ge s , t o a voi d a ddi t i ona l de f e c t i ve

pe r f or ma nce, a nd t o pr omot e the inf or ma l s e ttleme nt of

di s put e s . Pol l a r d v. Sa xe & Yol ke s De v. Co., 12 Ca l. 3d

374, 525 P. 2d 88, 92, 115 Ca l . Rpt r . 648, 652 ( 1974) ;

St ur dy Conc r e t e Cor p. v. Na b Cons t r . Cor p., 65 A. D. 2d

262, 411 N. Y. S. 2d 637, 644 ( 1978) . Thus , e ve n whe n t he

pa r t i e s ha ve not i nc l ude d a "t a ke ove r " cl a us e i n t he i r

c ont r a c t , c our t s ha ve i mpos e d upon c ont r a c t or s t he dut y

t o gi ve s ubc ont r a c t or s not i c e a nd a n oppor t uni t y t o c ur e

be f or e t e r mi na t i ng t he c ont r a c t f or f a ul t y pe r f or ma nc e .

Unite d St a t e s ex r e l. Cor t ol a no & Ba r one , I nc . v. Mor a no

Cons t r . Cor p. , 724 F. Supp. 88, 98 ( S. D. N. Y. 1989) ; s e e

a l s o Cyc l o Fl oor Ma c hi ne Cor p. v. Na t i ona l Hous e wa r e s ,

I nc . , 296 F. Supp. 665, 682 ( D. Ut a h 1968) ( i mpos i ng a

not i c e r e qui r e me nt i n a nonc ons t r uc t i on c ont e xt ) .

Mc Cl a i n a t pa ge 198.

We not e t ha t t he t r i a l c our t di d not ma ke a ny f i ndi ngs of f a c t

with r e ga r d t o not i c e or oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t t he de f ect s . Thus

t he r e a r e no f i ndi ngs t o whi c h we c a n a ppl y t he pr e s umpt i on of

c or r ect ne s s pr ovi de d i n Rul e 13( d) , T. R. A. P. Rul e 36, T. R. A. P.
8

r e qui r e s us t o exa mi ne t he r ecor d, ma ke f act ua l de t e r mi na t i ons ,

a ppl y t he l a w a nd r e nde r t he j udgme nt wa r r a nt e d by t he l a w a nd t he

e vi de nce.

I n t hi s c a s e , i t ha s be e n e s t a bl i s he d by a pr e ponde r a nc e of

t he evi de nce t ha t as ear l y as Decembe r , 1993, t he pl a i nt i f f s put

t he de f e nda nt on not i c e t ha t t he ba s e me nt wa s l e a ki ng a nd t ha t t he

ba s e me nt wa l l s we r e not be i ng c ons t r uc t e d i n a c c or da nc e wi t h t he

s peci f i cat i ons . At t ha t t i me , t he ar ea ar ound t he ba s e me nt wa l l s

ha d not be e n ba c kf i l l e d. The de f e nda nt, wi t hout c or r e c t i ng t he

de f ect s , backf i l l e d t he ar ea ar ound t he ba s e me nt wa l l s t he r e by

r e nde r i ng it di f f i c ult to c or r e c t a ny wa t e r pr obl e m. The wa l l s of

t he ba s e me nt l e a ke d a nd c ont i nue d t o l e a k up t o t he t i me of t he

t r i a l . The pl a i ntif f , J e f f r e y Ke ith Phillips , te s tif i e d tha t he

t a l ke d wi t h t he de f e nda nt on Apr i l 8, 1994, a nd t ha t he wa s t ol d

t ha t t he r e wa s not hi ng t ha t c oul d be done a bout i t , i t wa s t oo

l a t e .

The pl a i nt i f f s a l s o f ur ni s he d t he de f e nda nt wi t h a l i s t of

ot he r de f e c t s t he y f ound i n t he hous e . The y f ur t he r re f us e d t o

a ut hor i z e a f i na l dr a w on t he c ont r a c t pr i c e of t he hous e unt i l t he

de f ect s we r e c ompl e t e d. We a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he y we r e

j us tif i e d in s o doi ng. We a r e f ur t he r of t he opi ni on a nd f i nd t ha t

t he de f e nda nt i s c ha r ge a bl e wi t h not i c e a s of De c e mbe r , 1993, a nd
3

Mr. Bacon described a french drain as follows: "You dig a ditch out away

from the house and put the rock in it and the tile, straw it and put the dirt back.

You dig from one end to the other and bring the tile back to the top of the ground

for the water to drain into."

9

t ha t f r om De c e mbe r , 1993, unt i l Apr i l , 1994, wa s a mpl e t i me wi t hi n

whi c h t o c or r e c t t he pr obl e ms .

Ra ymond Ki dd, a lic e ns e d buildi ng c ont r a c t or , c a lle d a s a

witne s s by the pl a i ntif f te s tif i e d tha t he wa s f a milia r with the

s t a nda r ds of t he c ons t r uc t i on i ndus t r y i n Wa s hi ngt on Count y i n the

year s 1993 a nd 1994. He fur t he r te s tif i e d tha t the c ons t r uc tion of

t he dwe l l i ng wa s not up t o s t a nda r d.

Mr . Don Bacon, a l i cens e d ge ne r a l cont r act or , t e s t i f i e d on

be ha l f of t he de f e nda nt . He t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he r e we r e de f ect s i n

t he hous e but t ha t t he y c oul d be r e pa i r e d a t a mi ni ma l c os t. As to

t he wa t e r i n t he ba s e me nt , he c onc e de d t ha t t he hous e s houl d ha ve

dr i e d by t he ti me of the tr i a l. He s ugge s t e d t ha t t he gr a de of t he

l ot s houl d be c ha nge d a s a f i r s t e f f or t t o cor r ect t he wa t e r

pr obl e m a nd i f t ha t wa s i ns uf f i c i e nt , a " f r e nc h dr a i n" s houl d be

i ns t a l l e d a r ound t he hous e .

3

I t is implic it in the tr i a l c our t ' s f i ndi ng tha t the c ons t r uc -

tion f e ll be l ow the s t a nda r ds pr e va iling in the a r e a , tha t the

t r i a l cour t accr e di t e d t he t e s t i mony of t he pl a i nt i f f s ' e xpe r t

witne s s , Mr . Ra ymond Ki dd. . . . [ O] n a n i s s ue whi c h hi nge s on
10

witne s s c r e di bility, the tr i a l c our t will not be r e ve r s e d unl e s s

t he r e i s f ound i n t he r e c or d c l e a r , c onc r e t e , a nd c onvi nc i ng

e vi de nc e ot he r t ha n t he or a l t e s t i mony of wi t ne s s e s whi c h c ont r a -

di c t the tr i a l c our t ' s f i ndi ngs . Se e Te nne s s ee Va l l e y Ka ol i n

Cor p. v. Pe r r y, 526 S. W. 2d 488 ( Te nn. App. 1974) . We c onc ur wi t h

t he f i ndi ngs of t he t r i a l c our t t ha t t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he

dwe l l i ng f e l l be l ow accept a bl e s t a nda r ds .

Fur t he r we a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he e vi de nc e s uppor t s a

f i ndi ng t ha t t he de f e nda nt wa s gi ve n a mpl e t i me a nd oppor t uni t y t o

c or r ect the pr obl ems or a t le a s t to a ttempt to c or r e c t the

pr obl e ms . "[ I ] n cas e s whe r e bot h pa r t i e s ha ve not f ul l y pe rfor me d,

i t i s ne c e s s a r y f or t he c our t s t o de t e r mi ne whi c h pa r t y i s

c ha r geabl e wi t h t he fi r s t unc ur e d ma t eri a l br e a c h. " Mc Cl a i n,

s upr a , 199. We f i nd t ha t t he de f e nda nt br e a c he d t he c ont r a c t a nd

t ha t hi s br each wa s t he f i r s t ma t e r i a l br each. Accor di ngl y, we

f i nd t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s a r e e nt i t l e d t o r e c ove r da ma ge s f r om t he

de f e nda nt whi c h r e s ul t e d f r om t he de f e nda nt ' s br e a c h of c ont r a c t .

We fur t he r f i nd t ha t t he da ma ge s a wa r de d by t he t r i a l c our t a r e

r eas ona bl e unde r t he ci r c ums t a nces of t hi s cas e .

Al l i s s ue s ar e r e s ol ve d aga i ns t t he appe l l a nt . The t r i a l

c our t is a f f i r me d in a ll r e s pe c t s . Cos t s a r e ta xe d to the
11

a ppe l l a nt a nd t hi s c a us e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or t he

c olle c tion the r e of .

 ________________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

CONCUR:

_______________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

_______________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J .
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

J EFFREY KEI TH PHI LLI PS a nd ) WASHI NGTON CI RCUI T

J ENNI FER PHI LLI PS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9509- CV- 00298

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. G. RI CHARD J OHNSON

 ) J UDGE BY I NTERCHANGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

EUGENE RUSSELL, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

 )

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

ORDER

Thi s a ppe a l c a me on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d from t he

Ci r c ui t Cour t of Wa s hi ngt on Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .

Upon c ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e

wa s no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

The tr i a l cour t i s af f i r me d i n al l r e s pect s . Cos t s ar e t a xe d

t o t he a ppe l l a nt a nd t hi s c a us e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or

t he c olle c tion the r e of .
13

 PER CURI AM