T he p l ai nt i f f s al so sued K no x P est M anagem ent , Inc. (“ K P M ”), ba sed up o n t hat ent i t y ’ s t erm i t e l et t er. T he 1

su i t as t o K P M and t he cross- cl ai m s b et ween t he d efend ant s and K P M were d i smi ss ed b y t he t ri al co urt. N o issu e is raised o n a p p ea l as to these d i sp o si t i o ns.



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

AT KNOXVI LLE A pr il 4, 200 5 S es sio n J. ST EPHEN AMI SON, ET AL 

### . v. J ACK D. McCARTY, ET AL 

### .

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Bradley County No. 01-135 Je rri S. Bryant, Chancellor

No. E2004-00955-COA- R3-CV - F ILED APR IL 28, 2005

J . Stephen Amison and wife , Pamela G. Amison (“ the plaintiffs”) , purcha sed a house from Jack D. McCarty and wife , Be rtha B . McCarty (“the defe ndants”). T here afte r, the plainti ffs sued the defe ndants for dam age s an d , in the alternative, for r escission of the c ontrac t of purcha se. The

1 plaint if fs a lle g e d th a t, u nb e kn ow ns t to the m w he n th e c on tr a c t w a s si g ne d and whe n th e sa le subsequently

was c losed, the house wa s infested with termites; t hat the def endants ha d prior kn ow le dg e of the te rm ite inf e statio n; a nd that the de fe nd a nts int e nti on a lly or n egli g e ntl y misrepre sented the true condition of the house. F ollowing a bench trial, the court decr eed r escission,
a wa rd e d th e plaint if

fs dis c re tio na

ry c os ts, a nd de nie d the plaint if fs ’ re qu e st fo r the ir

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. B othsid e s r a ise iss ue s o n a pp e a l. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Aff irm ed; Case R em anded
C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.
J ohn C. Cavett, J r., Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the a ppellants, J ack D

. McCarty and wife , Be rtha B

. M c C art y.
J

. Michae l Shar

p and D. Mitchell Bry ant, Cleveland, Tenne ssee, for the appellee s, J

. S tephen Amison and wife, Pame la G. Amison.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN IONR ule 1 0 o f t he R ules o f

t he C o urt o f

A p p ea l s p ro vid es a s fo l l o w s: 2

T h i s Cou r t , w i t h t h e c on c u r r e n c e of a l l j u dg e s pa r t i c i pa t i n g i n t h e c a s e , ma y a f f i r m, revers e o r mo d i f

y t he act io n s o f th e t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a f or m a l o p i n i o n w o u l d h a v e n o p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e
. W h e n a c a s e i s d e c i ded by
m e m o ra n d u m o p inio n it s h a ll b e d e sig n a te d “ M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ” , sha ll not be publ i s hed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed
cas e. -2- The de fendants contend on appe al (1) t h at t he trial c ourt err ed whe n it gr anted r escission since, a ccor ding to the defe ndants, the plaintiffs had an adequate re medy at law; (2) that resc ission
was not a ppropriate beca

use “[the plaintiffs] cle arly chose to pur sue their leg al re medy ”; and ( 3) that the plaintiffs’ pr oof wa s not sufficient to war ran t re s ci s s i o n
. The plaintiffs c ontend, by way of a
se pa rate iss ue , th a t th e c ou rt

e rr e d infaili ng to a wa

rdthe m th e ir

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s.
A re solution of all of the issues raised on appea l require s that we e ng ag e in a de novo revie w of the evide nce prese nted to the trial court. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13( d). Howeve r, the re cord be fore us does not contain a tr anscript or statement of the e vidence . Be cause of this deficie ncy , we c annot perf orm our Rule 13(d) de novo revie w. As we said in She rro d v . W ix , 849 S.W .2d 780, 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992),

[w] hen a trial court de cides a case without a jury , it’s [sic] findings of fac t are presumed to be corr ect unless the e videnc e i n the re cord preponde rate s ag ainst them. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). This court cannot r ev i ew the f

acts de novo without an appellate rec ord containing the fa cts, and ther efor e, we must assume that the rec ord, ha d it been pr e se rv e d, wo uldha ve c on ta ine d s uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to su pp ort th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fa c tua l f ind ing s. (Citations omi tted). The judg ment of the trial court is a ffirme d pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of A p p e a l s
. C o s t s o n ap p e a l ar e t a x e d t o t h e ap p e l l a n t s , J a c k D

. M c C a r t y a n d B e r t h a B

. M c C ar t y. 2 Th is c a se is r e ma nd e d f

or e nf or c e me nt o f the tr ial c ou rt ’s jud g me nt andfo r c oll e c tio n o f c os ts assessed be low, all pursuant to applica ble law.

_______________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, J R., J UDGE