-1- 

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

AT KNOXVI LLE Fe brua ry 2, 200 4 S es sio n DANNY R. BLALO CK, v. CAROLYN S. BL ALOCK Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Sevier County No. 2001-458-III Re x Henry Ogle, Judge
F ILED FEBRUARY 24, 2004
No. E2003-01151-COA- R3-CV

A m ed i at ed agr ee m en tp ro v i d ed t h atHu s b an d wo u l d s el l h i s o n e- h al f i n t er es ti n P i geo n Fo rge pr op e rty to Wi fe fo r $ 50 0, 00 0. 00 , b ut i f t he pu rcha se pri c e wa s n ot p a id i n o ne y e ar, the pr op e rt y would be sold at a

uction and the net proce eds divided. The proper ty was so l d at au ct i o n for $244,429.00, net. Wife claims this amount plus $255,271.00 and the trial court a g ree d. Tenn. R. App . P .3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Aff irm ed as Modif ied
W I L L I AM H. INMAN , S R
. J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RA N KS and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J .J ., joined.
Robert L . J olley , J r., Knoxvil le, Tenne ssee, attorney for Appe llant, Danny

R. Blalock.
J e rr o l d L

. B e c k e r

a n d J e n n i f

e r R

. P e ar s o n , K n o x v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , a t t o r n e ys f o r A p p e l l e e , C ar o l yn S. Blalock.
OP IN ION
This is a domestic relations case in which a Rule 31 Mediator w as appointed w ho reported t h at t he mediation wa s succe ssful “in that an a g ree ment was re ache d conce rning all issues” on De c e mbe r 1 7, 20 01

. A fo rm a l Se ttl e me nt Ag re e me nt w a s e xec ute d b y the pa rt ie s a ndthe ir

c ou ns e l, which provide d (1) t h at t h e Husband would rec eive a duplex i n Neva da upon payment to wife of $8 ,0 00 .0 0 f

or he r eq uity in the pr op e rty , (2) that Hus ba nd a g re e s to pu rc ha se , a ndWif e a g re e s to se ll, her interest in rea l property in Pigeon Forg e, Tennessee , for $500,000.00 “pay able in full wit hin one y ear from the date of e ntry of t he final decr ee to be secur ed by a dee d of trust executed by Husband in favor of

Wife”, (3) t h at during the “ intervening y ear ” Husba nd shall continue to deve lop the property at his expense, (4) that during the y ear Wife will r ece ive one-ha lf of the net proc eeds of any sale of any

portion of t he property to be credited ag ainst the “sell price ” of $500,000.00, (5) in theT hi s j udgment i s ca pt i oned as an amended f i nal j udgment , becau s e a pri or “ f i nal ” j udgment was f

i l ed 1 A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 . H o w e v e r, this j u d g m e n t wa s n o t sign e d b y the trial ju d g e a n d thu s h a s n o leg a l effica c y. -2- event the $500,000.00 is not paid in full i n one y ear , the prope rty shall immediately

be plac ed at absolute public auc tion and the parties w i l l eq u all y divide the net proc eeds, ( 6) automobiles wer e a llo c a te d, (7) a joi nt a c c ou nt c on ta ini ng $4 0, 00 0. 00 sh a ll o nly be us e d to pa y

the “ wi nte r t ime i n d e b t e d n e s s ” o n t h e P i g e o n F o r g e p r o p e r t y.
The a g ree ment provided that “ [t ]he parties by their sig nature s repr esent that this is the entire a g re e me nt by a ndbe tw e e n th e m; that th e y are sa tis fi e d w ith the a g re e me nt andwi sh the Cou rt to approve the agr eeme nt; that they have r elied upon the a dvice of their own indepe ndent counse l; that the Mediator ha s not provided any leg al advice to them.” On May 3, 2002, the parties listed the Pigeon For g e prope rty for sa le with a Rea ltor. The a sking pric e wa s $ 1, 19 0, 00 0. 00 . I f the pr op e rt y re ma ine d u ns oldon June 15 , 2 00 2, the y a g re e d to au c ti o n it

. T h is a g r e e me n t w a s ap p r o v e d b y th e tr ia l c o u r t b y o r d e r w h ic h e xp r e s s ly r e s e r v ed the issue of the distribution of the proc eeds of the sale. A final judg ment was e ntere d April 15, 2003 , g ranting a divorc e on stipulated g rounds. The 1 judgme nt incorporated a MDA ag ree ment executed by Husband only , which contained a provision re sp e c tin g the Pig e on F or g e pr op e rty sim ila r t o th e me diate d a g re e me nt. The prope rt y was sold at auc tion for $764,500.00, substantially less than its value as e sti ma te d b y

the pa rt ie s, a ndthe ne t pr oc e e ds of $2 44 ,4 29 .0 0 we re a wa

rd e d to Wif

e tog e the r w ith a judg ment of $ 2 5 5 , 5 7 1

. 0 0 ag ainst Husband, on the theory that he had a g ree d to purcha se Wife’s interest for

$500,000.00.
Husband appea ls, insisting that his initial ag ree ment to pur chase the Wife’s fi ft yperc ent int e re st i n th e pr op e rty fo r $5 00 ,0 00 .0 0 wa s mutua lly re pu diate d a nd su sp e nd e d by a n a g re e me nt t o se ll the pr op e rty

a nd div ide the ne t pr oc e e ds e qu a lly . T his is th e issue fo r r e so lut ion . A pp e llate re vie w i s de novo on the re c or d w ith a pr e su mpt ion that as to fa c tua l matt e rs the jud g me nt i s c or re c t. Rule 13(d) Te nn. R. App. P. Conclusi ons o f l aw be ar no pr esumption of corr ectne ss. Col dwe ll Banker v. KRA Holdin gs , 42 S.W .3d 868 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
When there ha s been a

mediated se ttlement ag ree ment this Court has applied the terms of c on tr a c t la w t o d e te rm ine wh e the r a jud g me nt m a y

be e ntered bas ed u po n th e a g re e me nt. Environ m ental Abatement , Inc. v. Astrum R. E. C

orp. ,27 S.W .3d 530, 539-540 (Te nn. Ct. App. 20 00 ); V ac c are lla v . V

ac c are lla ,4 9 S. W.3 d 3 07 , 3 14 -3 15 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 1)

. Th e tr ia l ju dg e in interpre ting pa

rag raph 2 he ld that Wi fe w as entitled to $500,000.00. We respe ctfully disag ree
. I n Pitt v. Tyree Org., Ltd. ,90 S.W .3d 244, 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), this Court sum marized the g e ne ra l rule s f

or c on str uc tio n o f c on tr a c ts:-3- The c ardina l rule in the construc ti o n of contra cts is to ascertain the intent of the parties. Bradson Mercantile, Inc. v. Crabtree , 1 S.W .3d 6 4 8 , 6 5 2 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p. 1999 )( ci t i n g West v. Lami nite Plasti cs Mfg. Co. , 6 74 S.W. 2d31 0 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 4) ). I f the c on tr a c t is plain a ndun a mbi g uo us , the me a nin g the re of is a qu e sti on of

la w, a ndit i s the Cou rt ’s fu nc tio n to int e rp re t th e c on tr a c t a s w ri tte n a c c or din g to its plain terms. Id. (c i t i n g Petty v . Sloan , 197 Tenn. 630, 277 S.W.2d 355 (1955))

. T h e langua g e used in a contra ct must be taken and understood in its plain, ordinary , and popular sense. Id. (c i t i n g Bob Pearsal l Motors, In c. v. Re

gal Ch rysler-Ply m outh , Inc. , 521 S.W .2d. 578 (Tenn. 1975) ). I n constru i ng contra cts, the words e xpre ssi ng the pa

rties’ int e nti on sh ou ld b e g ive n th e us ua l, n a tur a l, and ordina

ry meaning

. Id. (c i t i n g Ballard v. North Am erican Life & Cas. Co. ,667 S.W .2d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983))

. I f t he langua g e of a written instrument is unambig uous, the Court must interpre t it as written rather than a ccor ding to the une x presse d intention of one of the parties. Id. , (c i t i n g Sutto n v . Fi rst Na t. B ank of

Cro ssv ill e , 620 S.W. 2d 5 2 6 ( T e n n
. C t

. A p p
. 1 9 8 1 ) )

. C o u r t s c a n n o tm ak e c o n tr a c ts for pa rties but can only

enfor ce the contra ct which t he parties themselves have made. Id
. (c i t i n g McKee v. Co n tinent al Ins. C o. , 191 Tenn. 413,234 S.W.2d 830 (1950)).
The e ntire contra ct must be considere d in de termining the meaning of any or all of its parts. Ae tna Cas. & Sur
. Co. v . Woods ,5 65 S.W. 2d 86 1, 86 4 (T e nn . 197 8)

. “ No sin g le c laus e in a co ntr a c t is to be vie we d in iso la tio n; rathe r the c on tr a c t is to b e ‘v ie we d f ro m be g inn ing to e nda ndits te rm s mu st pass in revie w, for one clause may modify , limit or illuminate another.’ Cocke Co. Bd. of Highw ay Co m m ’rs v. Ne wport Util s. Bd. ,690 S.W .2d 231, 237 (Tenn. 1985) .” Fi z z e ll Co ns tr

. Co . Inc. v. Ga tlinbur g. L. L. C. ,9 S.W .3d 79, 85 (Tenn. 1999)

. Th e int e rp re tatio n o f an u na mbi g uo us writt e n a g re e me nt i s a qu e sti on of

la w f or the c ou rt , H a mb l e n C o u n t y v . C it y o f M o rristo wn , 656 S.W .2d 331, 335-36 (Te nn. 1983), and the court’s o v e rr id in g p u rp o s e is to a s c e r tain th e in te n ti o n o f th e parties. Pearsall Motors, In c. v. Re gal Chrysler-Plym outh , Inc. ,521 S.W .2d 578, 580 (Tenn. 1975) . The c ourt should consider the e ntire contra ct, Cocke Co. Bd. of Highw ay Com m ission ers v. Ne wport Utilities Bd. , 690 S.W .2d 231, 237 (Tenn. 1985) , and the “ situation invol ving the parties, the nature of the business in which they are eng ag ed and the subject matter to wh ich the contr act r elates.” Stovall v. Dattel , 619 S.W .2d 125, 1 2 7 ( T e n n
. Ct

. A p p
. 1 9 81). Wi lliamson C ount y Bro ad c as ting Co. , I

nc . v . I nte rmed ia P ar tne rs , 987 S.W .2d 550, 552 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Para g ra ph 2 o f the “ se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt” pr ov ide s:
Th e Hu sb a nda g re e s to pu rc ha se a ndWif e a g re e s to se ll a ll h e r rig ht, title and interest i n an d to the property situated in Pigeon F org e,-4- Tenne ssee f

or t he sum of $500,000.00 to be pay able in full within one ye a r f r o m t h e d a t e o f

e n tr y o f t h e F i n a l D e c r e e , t o b e s e c u r e d b y a deed of trust executed by

Husband in fa vor of Wife. During the intervening y ear , Husband shall continue to de velop the property and sh a ll b e re sp on sib le fo r a ll d e ve lop me nt c os ts anda ll i nd e bte dn e ss associate d with the property . During the y ear , Wife will rece ive oneha lf (1⁄2 ) of the ne t pro c e e ds of a ny sa le of a ny po rt ion of the pr op e rt y to be cr edited ag ainst the sell price of $500,000.00. I n the event the $5 00 ,0 0. 00 is n ot p a id i n f ull in o ne y e ar, the pr op e rt y sh a ll imm e diate ly

be pla c e d at a

bs olu te pu bli c a uc tio n a ndthe pa rt ie s w ill equally divide the proc eeds a fter a ll ex penses a nd indebtedness.
The last sente nce sig nificantly provides “[i]n the event the $500,000.00 is not paid in full in one y ear , the prope rty

shall immediately

be plac ed at a

bsolute public auction and the parties will equa lly divide the proc eeds a fter a ll expenses and indebtedness.” The net proc eeds f rom the absolute public auction wer e $244,429.00. Wife arg ues that Husband ag ree d to purcha se her interest for $500,000.00, and that the tria l judge corr ectly

rec og niz ed t h i s obligation by Husband. This ar g ument overlooks the f act that the b u y- a n d

- s e l l p r o v i s i o n o f

t h e c o n tr a c tw a s n e v e r

a c t i v a t e d

. H u s b a n d d i d n o t p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y; Wife never

tender ed any

inst ru m ent of c onvey ance ; no deed of trust was executed. The parties mutually ag ree d upon a different disposit ion of the prope rty , i.e. , a sale at auction to the hig hest and best bidder. The judgme nt that the Husband owe s the Wife $255,571.00 for he r i n t er es t in the Pigeon F org e prope rty

is vacated. T h e net pr ocee ds of $244,429.00 re sulting fr om the sale of the pr op e rty wi ll b e div ide d e qu a lly

be tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s. As mod if

ie d, the jud g me nt is af

fi rm e d. Cos ts are assessed to the a

ppellee.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM H. INMAN, SENI OR J UDGE