# FILED
October 12, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON JIMMY HAWKINS, ) ) Pla intiff /A pp elle e, ) McNairy Chancery No . 6844

) VS. ) Appeal No. 02A01-9708- CH-00203 ) DENNIS ELLIS, ) ) D efe nd an t/Ap pe llan t. ) APPEAL FROM

THE CHA NCERY C OURT O F McNAIRY COU

NTY AT SELMER, TENNESSEE THE HONORABL E DEWEY C. WHITE NTON, CHANCEL LOR

JOE H. BYRD, JR. Jackson, Tennessee Attor ney for Appel lant

TERRY ABERNATHY Selmer, Tennessee Attor ney for Appel lee

AFFIRMED

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.

CONCUR: W. FRANK CRAWF

ORD, P.J., W.S. DAVID R. FARMER, J.2

D efe nd an t/ap pe llan t, Denni s El li s

(“ap pe llan t”), a pp ea ls th e ju dg m en t of t he tria l co urt aw ard ing plai nti ff /appel lee, Jimmy Haw

kins, Sr . (“a pp elle e”), a n et ju dg m en t of $ 28 ,86 7.6 4 a nd an eq uita ble lien on the su bje ct re al e sta te u ntil p ay m en t of th e ju dg m en t. Fo r re as on s s tate d h ere ina fter, w e a ffirm the jud gm en t of th e tria l co urt.

This cas e inv olve s a re side ntial co nstru ction c ontra ct en tered int o by appell ee/ general contract or and app ellant/lan dow ner. The parti es signed a print ed buil ding cont ract on June 23, 1994. The contr act cont ained handwrit ten pro

vis ion s a nd a p rinte d d es crip tion of m ate rials w ith a pl ace provi ded to i nclude handwri tt en insert ions. This

agreem en t an d th e e ntir ety of its ter m s w ere ev ide nc ed by ce rta in d oc um en ts, in clu din g a sketchof th

e g ara ge ap art m en t to b e o cc up ied by ap pe llan t’s son, another sket ch of the main house w ith a sunroom add ed b y the app ellant, the Bu ilding C ontra ct, and the D esc ription o f M aterials . Late r, a copy of t he detai ledblue

pri nts of the hom

e was ordered and used b

y the parti es. The origi nal constr ucti on cost as set forth in t he writ ten bui ldi ng contract was $1 40 ,00 0.0 0. Th is in clu de d th e s ing le fa m ily re sid en ce , the ad ditio n of th e s un roo m , an d th e g ara ge ap artm en t.

It is undisput ed that t he residence being bui lt by a ppell ee w as ne ve r in ten de d to be co ns tru cte d in stri ct co m plia nc e w ith th e d eta iled blu ep rint s th at w ere ord ere d. T he bre ak fas t ba y w ind ow w as eli minated fr om the pla ns , a s un roo m w as ad de d, th ere w as to be no ba se m en t, an d th e s tair w ay w as de lete d fr om the pla ns thereby changing t he int eri or and exter ior walls and some of the ceil ing height s. There were also some m inor changes in some w

indows and doors and som

e changes in the roof desi gn and exteriortri m details.

In pe rti nent part , t he

Bu ildin g C on trac t en tere d in to b y th e p artie s o n J un e 2 3, 1 99 4, c on tain ed the follo w ing pro vis ion w hic h is at th e h ea rt of t his dis pu te: Ow ners and Builder s agree that no changes from the ori ginal pl ans, sketches, sp

ec ifica tion s a nd de sc ript ion of m ate rials sh all b e made, req

uir ed, or co llec ted for, u nle ss bo th p artie s a gre e th ere to in w ritin g, as to t he extent of the ch anges and the amount to be pai d or deducted t herefor e, bef or e work thereon shal l have begun. As construct ion progressed on the r esidence, numerous cosme ti c and struct ural changes, deleti ons, and addit ions were made. The centr al disp ute in th is m atte r is w he the r the se ch an ge s, d ele tion s, a nd addit ions were per formed with the knowledge and consent of t he appellant . Appell ee contends that t hese changes were perfor med

at th e a pp ella nt’s req ue st, a nd m ain tain s th at th es e c ha ng es w ere no t ag ree d to in3

w ritin g, but were rat her the r esul t of oral conv er sation s tha t took plac

e at th e co nstru ction s ite. M ore parti cularl y, when these changes w ere un de rtak en, ap pe llee co nte nd s th at h e w ou ld d isc us s s aid ch an ge s w ith ap pe llan t, tel l appel lant tha

t the ch an ge s w ou ld a dd to th e to tal b ill, an d g ive ap pe llan t a fi gure or at least some idea of the ext ra co

sts i nvo lved. Ap pellan t, on the othe r han d, insis ts that m any of the se c han ges we re undertaken without his

kn ow led ge or co ns en t an d a s s uc h a re a bre ac h o f the ab ov e p rov isio n in the Buil ding C on trac t. W hen appel lant was asked to pay an extra amount over and above the contract price f or these changes,he

refu se d, a nd ap pe llee ce as ed co ns truc tion on the res ide nc e. Whe n no solut ion coul d be reached be tw ee n th e p artie s, a pp elle e file d a lien on the ap pe llan t’s p rop erty an d th en filed su it to e nfo rce tha t lien
.
On February 3, 1995, appel lee

filed a c om plaint in wh ich h e alleg ed th at he wa s du e from the appel lant the ba lan ce of $ 12 ,40 1.4 2 o f a r es ide ntia l bu ildin g contract , pl us the sum of $38,058. 68 for “ex tras” th at w ere incl uded in th e re sid en ce . Th ere afte r, on Ap ril 25 , 19 95 , ap pe llan t filed an an sw er to ap pe llee ’s c om pla int w ith affi rmative de fen se s. A pp ella nt a lso filed a c ou nte rcla im ag ain st a pp elle e a lleg ing, inter alia , breach of co ntra ct, im pro ve m en ts m ad e in a n on -w ork m an like m an ne r, an d breach of expr ess and impli ed warranti es of workmanship and material s whereby he was seeking

$46,500. 00 in compensatory damages fr om appellee.

This m att er was tri ed in the Chancery Court of McNairy County, Tennessee, on March 3, 1996 , through M arc h 5 , 19 96 . U po n re vie w ing the ex ten siv e e vid en ce in th is m atte r, th e tr ial cou rt awarded appell ee $4 2,5 14 .14 m inu s a $1 3,6 46 .50 cre dit to ap pe llan t for c om ple tion item s o n th e res ide nc e. The net amount of thi s judgment due appellee was $28,867.64. This appeal ensued.

Inasmuch as thi s case was tri ed

by the tria l co urt sittin g w itho ut a jur y, th is C ou rt’s rev iew on appeal is governed by

Te nn es se e R ule of A pp ella te P roc ed ure 13 (d) , w hic h d irec ts u s to revi ew the case de novo
. Roberts v. Robertson County Bd. of Educ. , 692 S.W.2d 863, 865(T en n. C t. Ap p. 1 98 5); Haverlah
v. Memphis Aviation, Inc. , 67 4 S .W .2d 29 7, 3 00 (T en n. C t. Ap p. 1984); Tenn. R

. Ap p. P . 13 (d) . In conducti ng

a de novo

rev iew of th e re co rd b elo w , ho w ev er, this C ou rt m us t pr es um e th at th e tr ial c ourt’ s fi ndings of fa ct a re c orr ec t. Under this st andard of revi ew, we m ust affirm the trial c ou rt’s d ec isio n u nle ss the tri al co urt co m m itted an err or o f law affe ctin g th e re su lt or unless the

ev ide nc e p rep on de rat es ag ain st th e tr ial co urt’s find ing s. Roberts , 692 S.W.2d at 865.4

Appellant firs

t co nte nd s th at th e tr ial c ou rt e rre d w he n it a pp lied the princ iple s of qu as i-co ntra ct, quantum meruit , and unju st en richm ent to the fa cts o f this ca se “w here non e of sai d theori es

of rec ove ry we re alleg ed w ithin the com plaint o f Ap pellee .” W e dis agre e.

This Court has no duty t o create aclai m the ple ad er d oe s n ot s pe ll ou t in its co m pla int. Donaldson
v. Donaldson , 557 S.W

.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1977). How ever, we will give

eff ect t o the subst ance ratherthan the for m an d te rm ino log y o f a p lea din g. Usrey v. Lewis , 553 S.W.2d 612, 614 ( Tenn. Ct. App. 1977) and Wheeler v. City of Maryville , 29 Te nn. Ap p. 3 18 , 32 1-2 2, 2 03 S.W .2d 92 4, 9 25 -26 (19 47 ). All that Tenn. R.Ci v. P. 8.01 requi res i s that a c om pla int c on tain a s ho rt, p lain sta tem en t of a cla im sh ow ing the ple ad er is en titled to r elie f alo ng w ith a cla im of damage. Adams v. Carter County Memorial Hospital

, 548 S.W .2d 3 07, 3 08-0 9 (T enn . 197 7).
Ap pe llee se ts fo rth th e fo llow ing in p arts thre e a nd fou r of h is c om pla int: 3.
. . .[ a]s the const ructi on progressed, the D efe nd an t sp ec ifica lly re qu es ted and req uire d n um ero us ch an ge s a nd ad ditio ns an d e xtra s to the orig ina l Bu ildin g C on trac t, an d th e P lain tiff, pursuantto instru

ctions and requ est fro m the D efen dan t, prov ided m any extra s and addit ions t o the

ori gin ally agreed upon structur e or struct ures, and all of such addit ions and extras r esulted i n substanti al addit ional cost an d e xp en se s to the Pla intiff, a nd pro vid ed su bs tan tial a dd ition al v alu e to the D efe nd an t. 4. The Plainti ffwould furt her stat e and allege that all clai med e xtras and addit ions to the refere nce d B uilding Co ntrac t we re do ne a nd p erform ed i n a good, sub

stan tial and wo rkm anlike m ann er an d in e ach instan ce, w ere done pu rsu an t to th e s pe cific ins truc tion s o r re qu es ts a nd ag ree m en t w ith t he Defendant; and that , contr ary to t he terms of the Buil ding Contract between these p artie

s, n eith er p arty req uire d o r ins iste d u po n a ny w ritten change ord

ers , an d th e P lain tiff w ou ld fu rthe r alle ge tha t the D efe nd an t having now received t he value and benef it of any such changes and havi ng been an activeparti cipant i n requesti ng such changes and agreeing to such changes, he should now be estopped f rom asserti ng any contractua l provisi ons to the contr ary.

The pe tition m ak es no m en tion of q ua si c on trac t, quantum meruit , or u

nju st e nric hm en t; how eve r, aft er reviewing appell ee’s c

omplain t, it is t he opinion ofthis cour t that it s all egations make out not only a contract ual cause of acti on but also a cause of act ion based upon the above princi ples.

Consideri ng

tha t the tria l i n t his matter encompassed two and one -half days, there was extensi ve ev idencep resented at t rial . This evi dence recapitul ates the probl ems that developed between the parti es, namely,the al leged oral agreements for changes and added amenities, the

denial thereof by appell ant, the5

all eged defects i n the construct ion and the remedial measures that were proposed to r epair any defect s.

This case boils dow

n to th e cre dibility of the

partie s. Ap pellee testified th

at m any extra s w ere consider ed an d re qu es ted by ap pe llan t w ith th e a dd ition al c os ts e xp lain ed to h im . T o m en tion a fe w , ap pe llee test if iedthat brass fauc ets were asked f or by ap pe llan t an d in sta lled ac co rdin gly by ap pe llee ; tha t w ide r trim material was used at addit ional costs; that dryvi t was used on a gable i nsteadof vi nyl si ding; thata sunroom was added in t he place ofan uncovered de ck ; tha t ste el s tep s w ere req ue ste d in ste ad of w oo de n steps; that cu rio cabinet s were added in the pl ace of a c los et; th at h ard w oo d tile w as used as a two foot border i n each of the thr ee bedrooms and in the su nroom instead of ca rpet; tha t hard wo od tile w as u sed in the gara ge apartment kit chen instead of vi nyl fl ooring; that cer amic til e was used in a bathroom w here vinyl fl ooring was to b e u se d; th at c era m ic ti le was used in the foyerand on the fir st fi ft y inches of t he foyer w all; th at c era m ic tile was used in the

sunroom instead of carpet; that gl ass blocks were used in the pl ace of regul ar glas s in t he master bath room ; that ste p ou t corn ers w ere in stalled at ea ch c orne r of t he exteri or of t he house; t hat both t he garage in the m ain h ous e an d the gara ge in the g arag e ap artm ent w ere h eate d; an d tha t there we re to b e tw o lavat ori es in t he master bathr oom instead ofon e. T he se are a fe w of th e m od ifica tion s th at ap pe llee cla im s we re req ue ste d b y a pp ella nt. Appellee i nsist s that each of t he “extr as” was discussed wit h appell ant i ncludi ng a d isc us sio n o f the inc rea se in c os t.
Appellant not onl y denies r equesti ng most of the “ extras ” butalso deni es thatthe cost of such was discussed wi t h h i m. However, the re a re c erta in “e xtra s” th at a pp ella nt te stifie d h e w an ted ad de d to the resi dence. For inst ance, appell ant t esti fi ed thathe wanted a wider door than the standard t hirt y-six i nch door and, ind ee d, g ot s uc h a do or. Ap pe llan t fur the r te stifie d th at it w as his idea to have ceramic ti le placed on his foyer w all. A pp ella nt te stifie d th at a pp elle e m en tion ed the po ss ibility of g las s b loc ks rep lac ing some of the wi ndo ws in the m aste r bath room and that a ppe llant de sired to have such glass blocks i nstall ed in placeof t he windows. In te stify ing to th es e “e xtra s,” a pp ella nt s tate d th at h e knew that t he costs f or the these addi ti ons w ou ld b e h igh er.

In the case sub judice , w

e d o n ot b elie ve ap pe llan t ca n re ly o n th e B uild ing C on tra ct p rov isio n requir ingtha

t all changes to t he plans

are to be made in writi ng and yet testi fy that he ordered certai n changes which w ere inc orp ora ted into the res ide nc e w itho ut s uc h a w ritin g. W he re t he re i s a c lau se in a construc ti on1 The same is also true for expert witnesses. The trial judge ha d the opportunity to hear a nd observe the expert witness in this matter. It was then left up to his discretion as to how m uch weight to give such

testimony. 6 contrac t which st ates

that changes must

be a ppro ved by th e ow ner a nd c ontra ctor in w riting an d ex tra w ork is pe rfor m ed up on the ow ne r’s v erb al in stru ctio n o r w ith t he owner’s knowledge and wit hout obj ecti on, t he clause req uirin g th at c ha ng e o rde rs m us t be in writ ing i s waived by the cour se of deal ing bet ween the parti es. Moore Const. Co., Inc. V. Clarksville Dept. O f Electricity

, 70 7 S .W .2d 1 (T en n. A pp . 19 85 ).

As mentioned supra , this ca

se e sse ntially bo ils dow n to th e cre d ib ility o f the tes tim on y. T he tria l judge he ard m an y w itne ss es , co m pris ing ten vo lum es an d o ve r thirte en hu nd red pa ge s o f tria l testi mony,

and revi ewe d fourt een exhibit s, i ncluding many photographs of the r esidence. The tr ial judge also was able t o observe the wit nesses and make a determinati on based upon

w ha t he sa w an d h ea rd. In lig ht o f this , this co urt m us t ap po rtio n g rea t de fer en ce to th at fin din g when determining whether the evi dence preponderat es against the tria l jud ge 's d ete rm ina tion
. See Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc. , 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). When a matter such as t his hi nges on t he credibi lity o f w itne ss es , the trial c ou rt w ill no t be reverse d unle ss th ere is foun d in th e rec ord c lear, co ncre te, an d co nvin cing evid enc e oth er tha n the oral test imony of w itne ss es tha t co ntra dic ts th e tria l co urt's find ing s. Galbreath v. Harris , 811 S.W.2d 88, 91 (Tenn. C t. App. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939, 112 S.Ct . 374, 116 L.Ed.2d 326 (1991) . As the Unite d States Supreme Court has observed:

The tri al j udge's major rol e is the det erminati on of fact , and with experi ence in fu lfilling tha t ro le c om es ex pe rtise . D up lica tion of the trial ju dg e's effo rts in the court of appeal s wo uld ve ry lik ely co ntrib ute on ly n eg ligib ly to the accuracy of f act det erminati on at a hug e co st in div ers ion of ju dic ial resources. In addit ion, t he parti es to a case on appeal have al ready been forced to concen tra

te th eir en erg ies an d re so urc es on pe rsu ad ing the tria l judge thatthei r account of the fac ts is the co rre ct o ne ; req uirin g th em to pe rsu ad e th ree m ore jud ge s a t the ap pe llate lev el is req uirin g to o m uc h.
Anderson

v. City of Bessemer C ity , 470 U.S. 564, 574-75, 105 S. Ct. 150 4, 1512, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (198 5). 1

In ligh t of th e fo reg oin g, w e c an no t sa y th at th e e vid en ce pre po nd era tes ag ain st th e fin din gs of th e tri al cou rt. Acc ord ing ly, w e a ffirm the jud gm en t of th e tria l co urt a w ard ing ap pe llee a n et ju dg m en t of7

$28,867. 64

an d a n e qu itab le lie n u ntil s uc h ju dg m en t is s atis fied . C os ts o f this ap pe al a re ta xe d to ap pe llan t, for which executi on ma

y issue if necessary.

HIGH ERS , J.

CONCUR:

CRAW FORD, P.J ., W.S.

FAR ME R, J.