R u le 1 0 (C o u rt o f A p p e a ls). M e m o ra n d u m O p in io n
. T hi s Co ur t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e of al l j udges 1 part i ci pat i ng i n t he case, may af f i rm, r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a f ormal op i ni on woul d h ave no prec edent i al val ue. W hen a cas e i s deci ded by mem oran dum o pi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O PINION , " s h al l n ot be pu bl i s h ed, an d s h al l n ot be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or an y r ea s on i n any s ubs equen t un r el at ed cas e.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON A U G U ST 21, 200 8 S es sio n 

### TO NY MONR OE v. JAC QUE LIN E Z IERDE N, ET AL. Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Dec atur County No. 3759 Ron E. Harm on, Chan cellor

No. W2007-01818-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Septem ber 17, 2008

Th e tr ia l c ourt

dis mis se d App e lla

nt’ s c omp la int

fo r s pe c if

ic pe rf or manc e of a c ontr a c t fo r the sa le of re al estate , and g rante d Appellee rea sonable attorney ’s fe es as pr ovided in the contra ct. Appellant appea ls the awa

rd of attorney ’s fe es; Appellee asser ts error in the amount of fe es aw arde d. We affir m
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgem ent of the Chancery CourtAff irm ed J. S TEVE N S T A FF O RD , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J ., W.S ., and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.
Br adley G. Kirk, L exington, TN for Appellant Steven W. Maroney , J ackson, TNfor Appe llee Matthew R. West, J ackson, TNfor Appe llee

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 1
In Dec ember

2005, Appellee J acque line Z ierde n, in her c apac ity as Administratrix of theT he t r i al cour t ’ s order s t at es t hat i t i s gr ant i ng M s . Zi er den’ s T enn . R

. Ci v. P

. 50. 01 “ mo t i on f or a di r ect ed 2

ve rd i ct. ”T his was, o f co urse , an i m p ro p er m o t i o n b ec au se m o t i o ns f o r d i rec t ed ve rd i cts hav e n o p l ac e in b en ch t rial s. Se e, e. g. , B ur t on V

. W ar r en Far m er s Coop. , 1 2 9 S .W .3 d 5 1 3 , 5 2 0 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e p ro p e r m o tio n w o u ld h a v e be e n a mo t i on f

or a n i n v ol u n t a r y di s mi s s a l a t t h e c on c l u s i on of t h e pl a i n t i f

f ' s pr oo f i n a c c or da n c e w i t h T e n n . R. Ci v . P. 41. 02. Acc or di n g l y , we wi l l con s t r u e t h e t r i al cou r t ' s or der as i f i t w er e an or der g r an t i n g a T en n . R. Ci v . P. 41. 02 d ism issa l.

-2- Estate of L ar ry L

. Hatridg e, moved the tr ial court to allow he r to sell rea l property located at 40 Hatridg e L ane in Par son, TN. The tria l court g rante d the motio n an d , o n Dec ember 3, 2005, Appellant Tony

Monroe ( as B uy er) and Ms. Z ierde n (as Seller/Owne r) enter ed into a n Auction Sales Contract with 7 L akes Rea lty & Auction. Th e Au c tio n Sa le s Co ntr a c t pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s: 3. CL OSIN G S: The c losing of this purc hase shall take place within 20 day s from the date of this Auction Sale, which date is stated above a nd adver tised as S AL E DATE. This c ontrac t is considered TI ME I S OF THE ESSENCE. The[r] e ar e no exceptions to the closingof the purc hase. Th e un de rs ig ned

purc ha se r a c kn ow le dg e s [and ] ab so lut e ly fu lly un d er s t an d [ s ] th e c l o s i n g o f t h i s p urc h as e w h en th ey s i gnth i s co n trac t on SAL E DATE. * * *
...In the eve nt that any

party here to shall file suit fo r breach or en fo rc em en to f t h i s agr ee m en t(i n cl u d i n g s u i t s fi l edaf t er cl o s i n g, wh ic h a re ba se d o n o r re late d to the a g re e me nt) , th e pr e va ili ngpa rt y shall b e enti tled to rec over a ll costs of such enf orce ment, including re a so na ble atto rn e y ’s fe e s. The c losing did not ta

ke plac e within the contra ctual time-fr ame a nd, on J anuar

y 26, 2006, Mr. Monroe f

iled a Complaint for Specific Perfor mance . Ms. Z ierde n counter ed with a moti on for direc ted verdic t. There afte r, the trial court he ard e vidence and, on Apr il 30, 2007, entere d its second 2 ame nd e d ju dg me nt, fi nd ing , in pe rt ine nt p art , th at: 3. Throug h no fault of [Ms

. Z ierde n], no rea l estate sales closingever occur red. * * *T he t r i al cour t ’ s f i r s t j udgment was ent er ed on A pri l 7, 20 07 , and t he f i r s t amended j udgment was en t er ed 3

o n A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 7

.

T en n es s ee Su pr eme Cour t Rul e 8 , R PC 1. 5 gi v es t h e t r i al c ou r t g u i dan ce w h en de t er mi n i n g t h e amou n t of 4

a tto rn e y’s f

e e s, to w it: (c o n tinu e d ...) -3- 5. Th at [Mr . M onro e ] ha s fa ile d to me e t hi s b ur de n o f p ro of in t his case . 6. That [Ms. Zier den’s] Motion for Di rec ted Ver dict is hereby g rante d, and [Mr. Monroe’s] case is dismi ssed. * * *
I T I S, THEREFORE, ORDERED, AD J UDGED AND DE CREED: * * * 2. That [Ms. Zier den] is awarde d the sum of [$7,500.00] as her re a so na ble atto rn e y s’ fe e [s], a

nd in a dd iti on

to t he atto rn e y s’ fe e s in the amount of [$437

. 5 0 ] p reviously awa rded to [Ms. Zie rden] for de fe nd ing[Mr . M onro e s’ s] F ir st R e qu e st f or Ad mis sio ns . 3
On or a bout May 2, 2007, Mr. Monroe f iled a motion for new

trial and/or to alter

or ame nd the judg ment. On May 29, 2007, Ms. Z ierde n moved the cour t for an a war d of additional attorne y ’s fee s incu rr ed in defe nding the motion for new tria l. On J uly 13, 2007, the trial cour

t entere d an order , denying the motion for new tria l, and g rantingMs. Z ierde n additional attorney ’s fees i n the amount of $700.
Mr . M onro e a

pp e a ls, and

ra ise s o ne iss ue fo r r e vie w a s st ate d in his br ie f: In light o f t h e failure to find the Appellant in def ault, did the trial c ourt e rr in a wa rd ingatto rn e y ’s fe e s?
Inth e p o s ture o f A p p el l ee , M s . Zi er d en as s ert s th atth e t ri a l c o u r t e rr e d i nn o tgra n t i n g a jud g me nt f

or the fu ll mea sure of he r attor ne y ’s fe e s, and

re qu e sts atto rn e y ’s fe e s f or de fe nd ingthi s a pp e a l. Whe n th e pa

rt ie s' c ontr a c t pr ov ide s th at th e pr e va ili ngpa rt y is e nti tle d to re a so na

ble atto rn e y ' s f

e e s to e nforce the c ontr a c t, t he pr e va ili ngpa

rt y is e nti tle d to re c ov e r i ts r e a so na ble atto rn ey 's fe es. Albrigh t v. Mercer , 945 S.W .2d 749, 750 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). I n such circ umstance, the trial court has no discretion reg arding whether to a war d attorney' s fee s; however , deter mining the a

mount of the attorney' s fee that is rea sonable is within the trial court' s discretion. Air line Cons tr. Inc

. v . Ba rr , 807 S.W .2d 247, 270 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). 4(

. . . con t i n u ed) 4 ( a) A l awy er ’ s f ee and c har ges f

or e xpens es s hal l be r eas onabl e.
T he f act o rs t o be co nsi d ered in d et erm i ni ng t he reasonab l eness of a f ee i ncl ud e t he fo llo w ing : ( 1) t h e t i me an d l abor r equ i r ed, t h e n ov el t y a n d di f f i cu l t y of t h e qu es t i on s i n v ol v ed, a n d the sk ill re q u isite to p e rfo rm the leg a l se rv ic e p ro p e rly; ( 2) t he l i kel i hood , i f

appare nt t o t he cl i ent , t hat t he acc ept an ce o f t he part i cul ar e m p lo ym e n t will p re c lud e o the r e m p lo ym e n t b y the law ye r; (3 ) th e fee c u sto m a rily ch a rg e d in the lo c a lit y fo r sim ilar leg a l se rv ic e s; (4 ) th e a m o u n t i n v o lve d a n d the re su lts o b ta ine d ; (5 ) th e ti m e li m itatio n s im p o se d b y the c lien t o r b y the c irc u m sta n c e s; (6 ) th e na tur e a n d len g th o f t h e p ro fes sio n a l re la tio n sh ip w ith the c lien t; (7) t he exp eri ence, reputat i o n, and ab i l i t y of t he l awyer o r l awyers pe rf o rming t he se rv ic e s; (8 ) w h e the r th e fee is f ixe d o r c o n ting e n t; (9) pri o r advert i seme nt s o r s t at em ent s b y t he l awyer wi t h res p ect t o t he f ees t he l aw y er c h ar g es ; a n d (10 ) whet her t he f

ee agreem ent i s i n wri t i ng.

-4- The preva iling party has the burde n to make out a prima facie case for his or her reque st for r e a s o n a b le att o r n e y ' s fee s. W

ilson Mgm t. Co. v. Star Dis tribs. C o. , 745 S.W .2d 870, 873 (T e nn .1 98 8) ; I

n r eE s t a t eo f P e rl b e rg , 694 S.W. 2d

30 4, 30 9 ( Te nn .Ct .App .1 98 4) . T he pa rt y re qu e sti ngthe atto rn e y ' s fe e s is no t re qu ir e d to ca ll witne sse s to test if y to pr ov e the re a so na

ble ne ss of the re quested fe es. This is beca use trial cour

ts are c apable of a p plying the rele vant fa ctors and decidingwhether

a re quested fee is r easona ble based on the court' s knowledg e of the c ase a nd the court' s p er ce p t i o n of the va lue of the se rvice s perf ormed. Wilson Mgm t. Co. , 745 S.W .2d at 873; Presto n Li

nc oln -M e rc ury , I nc . v . Ki lgo re , 525 S.W .2d 155, 158 (Tenn.Ct.App.1974). As set out above, the contra ct betwe en these parties spe cifica lly all o ws fo r re cover

y of atto rn e y ’s fe e s f

or the pr e va ili ng pa

rt y in any br e a c h or en fo rc e me nt a c tio n. Th e langua g e us e d in the pa rt ie s’ c ontr a c t is pla in a

nd un ambi guo us . I

n su c h c a se , it is we ll se ttl e d that th e c ontr a c t is to be int e rp re te d a c c or din gto i ts p la in t erm s a s wri tte n, and the langua g e us e d is to b e take n in its “plain, ordina

ry , and popular

sense.” Bob Pe ar

sa ll M oto rs, Inc ., 521 S.W .2d 578, 580 (Tenn. 1975)

. The interpr etation should be one t h at gi v es reasonable mea ning to a ll of the provisions of the a g re e me nt, wi tho ut r e nd e ri ngpo rt ion s o f i t ne utr a lize d o r w ith out e ff e c t. See Davidson v. Dav idson , 916 S.W .2d 918, 922-23 (Te nn.Ct.App.1995). The trial c ourt g rante d Ms. Z ierde n’s motion for direc ted ver dict based upon its findingthat Mr. Monroe ha d failed to me et his burden of proof. The corr ectne ss of the trial cour t’s g rantingthe motion for direc ted ver dict is not before this Court. As the prevailing party , the t rial court awar ded Ms. Z ie rd e n h e r a

tto rn e y ’s fe e s a s p ro vid e d in the c ontr a c t. O n a

pp e a l, M r. Mo nr oe do e s n ot c onte st the fa c t th at th e c ontr a c t a llo ws fo r r e c ov e ry of atto rn e y ’s fe e s. Rathe r, he argue s th at, b e c a us e Ms. Z ierde n alleg edly

failed to assert a c ompulsory counter claim re quired unde r Tenn. R. Civ. P. 13.01,-5-

she ca nnot rec over attorney ’s fe es. Althoug h Mr. Monroe’ s brief r efe renc es Ms. Z ierde n’s answe r, the answe r is not contained in the record. I n fac t, the rec ord bef ore us c ontains neither the or igina l complaint, nor any

responsive ple ading s filed by Ms. Z ierde n. This Court's re view is limit ed to the appellate rec ord and it is incumbent upon the appe llant to provide a re cord that i s adequate for a m ea n ingf ul review . Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). In the abse nce of Ms. Z ierde n’s answe r, we cannot a d dr e s s M r . M o n r o e ’ s c l a i mc o n c e r n i n gh e r a l l e g e d f a i l ur e t o r a i s e a f

f i r m at i v e d e f

e n s e s th e r e i n . In short, from the rec ord befor e us, and in lig ht of the plain and unambiguous language u s ed i n the parties’ contra ct, we c onclude that the trial cour t was cor rec t in awar ding some amount of attorne y ’s f e e s to M s . Z ie r d e n a s th e p r e v a il in g p arty in th is s u it

. T h e s o le qu e s ti o n , th e n , is whether the amount awa

rded is re asonable in light of the c ircumstance s. T h e qu es t i o no f wh at am o un t o f at t o rn ey 's fe e sh o u l d b e aw ar d ed i s wi th i nth e t ri al co urt 's discretion. Air li n e Cons tr. Inc . v . Ba rr , 807 S.W .2d 247, 270 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). We will not disturb that finding so longas t he amount of the awa rd is within the rang e of r easona bleness base d upon the spec ific fa cts of the c as e. T h e record r evea ls that Ms. Zier den re quested a total of $13,522.16 in attorney ’s fe es and e x penses, whic h amount is supported by aff idavit. The trial cour

t ultimately

awa rd ed a total of

$9,777.16 in attorney ’s fe es and e x penses. F rom our re view of the re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e amou nt of att orn ey ’s fe e s awa rd e d b y the tr ia l c ourt

wa s r e a so na

ble g ive n th e tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s. Con se qu e ntl y , w e cann ot fi nd that th e c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion. On a pp e a l, Ms. Z ie rd e n a sk s f

or a dd iti on a l atto rn e y ’s fe e s in c ur re d in de fe nd ingthi s a

pp e a l. In th e e xer c ise of

our d isc re tio n, we de c lin e to a wa rd any a dd iti on a l atto rn e y ' s f

e e s. For the fore g oing rea sons, w e aff irm the order of the trial court. Costs of th i s ap p ea l are assessed one -h al f to the Appellant Tony Monroe a

nd his surety , and one- half to the Appe llee, J a c qu e l i n e Z i e r d e n , f

o r w h i c he x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

J . STEVEN STAFF ORD, J