# FILED May 21, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NASHVILLE
JAMES E. FARRAR, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9808-CH-00443 VS. ) ) Bedford Chancery ) No. 21,083 MINNIE R. SEGROVES and ) ROLAND SEGROVES, Indiv idually, ) and as Executor of the Estate of ) TOM SEGROVES, ) ) Defendants/Appellants. ) APPEALED FROM THE CHAN CERY COUR T OF BEDFORD

COUNTY AT SHELBYVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE TYRUS H. COBB, CHANCELLOR
R. WHITNEY STEVENS, JR. P. O. Box 428 Fayetteville, Tennessee 37334 Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee VANESSA A. JACKSON 111 North Atlantic Street Tullahoma, Tennessee 37388 Attorney for Defendants/Appellants

AFFIRMED AND REMAN DED
BEN H. CANTRELL PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S. CONCUR: KOCH, J. COTTRELL, J.- 2 - 

## O P I N I O N
This is an action to receiv e a credit on a note and dee d of trust for payme nts made to the holde r’s hus band/ag ent. The Chancer y Cour t of B edfor d County gr

anted the rel ief request ed. We affirm.
I. Minnie Segroves owned tw o parcels of property in Shelbyville. Char les Blackwell occupied one parcel, upon w hich he operated a

business called Blackwell Sales and Tires. Ms. Segroves’ husband, Tom Segroves, a real estate broker, handled the properties for her. On January 24, 1996 Tom Segroves negotiated a sale of the two parcels to

James E. Farrar for $200,000. The contract stated that the sale was i n consideration of $5,000 in earnes t money and $195,000 to be paid at the closing. Mr. Farrar paid $5,000 in cash to Mr. Segroves.

The next day, Mr. and Ms. Seg rovessigned a warranty deed conveying the two parcels to Mr.Farrar. Mr. Segr oves did not deliver

the deed at that time, however, because the parties were still working out some details. Since Mr. Blackwell needed a place to move, Mr. Farrar offered to sell him another parcel of property Mr. Farrar owned. Mr. Farrar

offered the property to Mr. Blackwell for $20,000 and worked out a way to have tha t $20,000 applied to the purchase pr ice for the two lots Mr. Farrar bought

from Ms . Segroves. All of the negotiations took place with Mr. Segroves, who acted as his w i fe’s agent. She testified that “ what Tom said was okay.” The record shows that Mr. Farrar signed a $200,000 note and deed of trust to Ms. Segroves on Januar y 26, 1996. Mr. Segroves apparently also held these- 3 -

documents until the deal with Mr. Blackw ell was worked out . On February 1, 1996 Mr. Farrar deeded his other parcel to M r. Blackwell, and M r. Blackwell wrote a $1 ,0 00 check to Tom Segroves. Mr. Blackwell also si gned a $19,000note to Mr. Segroves and Mr. Farrar co-s ign ed it. The parties met at the cour thouse in Shelbyvill e and recorded the various deeds.

Shortlythereafter Tom Segroves became i ll. He died in the summer of 1996. Mr. Farrar discov ered that the note he gave M s. Segroves hadno t been credit ed with the $25, 000, and he asked the cour t for rel ief. The chancellor found as a fact that the contract price for the two parcels of property was $200,000;that Mr. Farrar paid $5,000 as earnes t money and it was not returned to him; and that Mr. Segroves agreed to let Mr. Farr ar have a credit on the $200,000 note for the $20,000 sale of his lot to Mr. Blackwell. The chancellor decreed that Mr. Farrar coul d be made whole by giv ing him a $25,000 credit on th e $200,000 note as of February 1, 1996.
II.

The appellant asserts th at the chancellor erred in al lowing parol evidence to alter the terms of the note. See Rush v. Chattanooga DuPont Employees’ Credit Union , 358 S.W.2d 333 (Tenn. 1962). The controversy in this case, however, is not over theterms of the note, but over the credits to be giv

en to the balance owed on the note. As to the $20,000 transaction w ith Mr. Blackwell , there can be no doubt that it took place subsequent to the date Mr. F arr ar signed the note. Therefore, it could not b e affe cted by the parol evi dence rule, which prohi bits evidence of agr eements made prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the no te.- 4 -

Whelchel Co. v. Ripley Tractor

Co. , 900 S.W.2d 691 (Tenn. App. 1995). A stronger case could be made about the $5,000 earnest money, which was pai d before the execution of the note. But the chancellor found th at the parties apparently anti cipated that the $5,000 would be returned to Mr. Farrar, and that due to Mr. Segroves’ illness the money was not returne d. Therefore, the testimony did n ot vary the terms of the note.
III.

T he appe llant also contends that the estate of Tom Segroves was a necessaryparty to the proceedings below. Rule 19.01 of the Tenness ee Rul es of Civil Procedure requires the joinder of all persons neces sary to give compl ete relief to those alr eady parti es, and all persons claimi ng an interest in the subj ect of the action, if their interest or the i nterests of tho se alread y p arties might be adversely affected. The appellant argu es that the effect of t he ch ancellor’s decree wa s to make the estate of Tom Segroves li able to Minnie Segroves for the $20,000 credit stemming from the Blackwell trans action. (The $1,000 check and the $19,000 note were made payable to Tom Segr oves.) We disagree. The only effect of the chancellor’s decree was a finding that the consi deration received b y Tom Segro ve s from these transactions was received by him as the agent of Minni e Segroves. As w e view the proof, such a finding was inescapable. Ms.Segroves testified that she left the transaction entirely in her husband’s ha nds; whatever consideration he received she considered it paid to her because it was all thei rs. She said, “He just handled it and it was his as far as he’s concerned.”- 5 - Whether there are any obligatio ns between Ms. Segrov es and her husband’s estate is a matter not decided in this case. We do not think the estate was a necessa ry party.

The judgment of

the lower court is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court of Bedford C ounty for any further

proceed ings nece ssary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.

_________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S. CONCUR:

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

_____________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE