R ul e 10. M emor andum O pi ni on 1

T h i s Cour t , w i t h t h e con cu r r en ce of a l l j u dg es pa r t i ci pat i n g i n t h e ca s e, ma y a f f i r m, r ev er s e or
m o 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 o rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ”, s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any
r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.

T en n

. Ct

. App. R. 10.



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

AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 3, 200 8 S es sio n
GRE GG BOL ES
v . TIMOT HY MOORE and M OORE F AM ILY M EDIC INE, PL LC

Appeal f romthe Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. 55149 Royce Taylor, Jud ge

No. M2007-02513- COA-R3- CV- F iled Dece m ber 30, 2008

This is a construction ca se. The pla intiff filed an a ction in ge nera l sessions court to collect money that he alleg ed that the de fenda nts owed him under a

const ruction contract. The g ener al sessions
c ourt e nte re d a jud g me nt i n th e pla int if

f’ s f avo r, and the de fe nd a

nts app eal ed to the c ir c uit c ourt

. The c ircuit court a lso entere d a judgment i n favor of t he plainti ff. After the circuit court de nied the defe ndants’ motion for a new trial, the defe ndants appea led. We a ffirm, findingthat the evidenc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he C ourt, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J ., W.S ., and J. S TEVE N S T A FF O RD , J. , joined. Tony L . Maples, Murfree sboro, Tennessee, for t he Defenda nt/Appellant Timothy Moore a nd Moore F amil y Me dic ine , PL L C.

C. Trac ey Parks, L ebanon, T ennesse e, and L arr y K. Tolbert, Murf

ree sboro, Tenne ssee , for the Pla int if f/Ap pe lle e Gr e g gB ole s.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1T he spel l i ng of M r. B o l es’ f i rs t nam e i s i nco nsi st ent t hrougho ut t he reco rd. It i s spell ed as b o t h “ G reg” 2

a n d “G re g g .”
-2- On J anuar y 12, 2007, Plaintiff/Appellee Gr eg gBole s (“B oles”) c aused a civil warr ant from 2 the Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s Court of Ruthe rf or d County to be iss ue d a gains t De fe nd ants /App e lla nts Timothy Moore and Moore Family Medicine, PL L C (collec tively “Moore ”) to c ollect $17,225.22 that Bole s alleg ed Moore owed him under a construc tion contrac t to build-out an exi sting building for a medical pr actice. I n response , Moore f iled a counte rcla im, alleg ing br eac h of contra ct and brea ch of w arr anty . The Ge nera l Sessions C ou rt h el d a t rial and on Ma rch 13, 2007 e ntere d a judgme nt in favor of

Bole s in t h e am o u n t of $9,000. The Ge nera l Sessions C ourt also dismissed Mo or e ’s c ounte rc la im.

Moore a ppeale d the dec ision of the Gene ral Sessions Court t o th e Circuit Court of Rutherfor d County

. On August 16, 2007, afte r a bench tr ial, the Circuit Court entere d a judg ment in favor of Bole s. The Circuit Court deter mined that Bo l es was e ntitled to damag es in the amount of $17,225.22, less a setoff

of $1,538.00 for

materia l s provided by

Moore a nd for unf

inished work. Bole s was also a

war ded $1,418.30 in pre

judgme nt inter est. Ther efor e, the Circuit Court awa rded B ole s a tot a l ju dg me nt o f $ 17 ,1 05 .5 2. On Au gus t 30 , 2 00 7, Mo or e fi le d a mot ion fo r a ne w tri a l. Th e Cir c uit

Court de nie d M oo re ’s mot ion fo r a ne w tr ia l on Oc tob e r 5, 20 07 . M oo re the n f ile d h is appea l to this Court.

Mo or e ra ise s tw o is su e s o n a pp e a l. F ir st , Mo ore a sk s u s whe the r t he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in findingthat Bole s had not brea ched a ny implied warra

nties. S ec o n d, Moore a sks us whether the weig ht of the evide nce is a g ainst the trial cour t’s decision.

Be cau s e t h i s ca s e w as tri ed b y th e tri al co urt s i t t i n g wi th o u t a j ury , we re v i ew th e t ri al co urt 's fi nd ing s o f f

a c t d e novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness, unless the evidenc e pr e po nd e rate s o the rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; Whit ev . Ea rly , 211 S.W. 3d 72 3, 73 7 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 2006) (c itation omit ted). We g ive “considerable defe renc e” to a trial court’s de terminations with reg ard to witness cre dibilit y
. Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 70 S.W .3d 729, 733 (Tenn. 2 0 0 2 ) (c itations omi tted). Que stions of law are revie wed de novo w it h n o p r e s umption of
corr ectne ss. S. Con structors, I nc. v. Loudon Cou nty Bd. of Edu c. , 5 8 S. W. 3 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 0 ( T e nn. 2001) (c itations omi tted).

Moore a rgues that B oles brea ched the implied warra nties in the construction contra ct. See Dixon v
. Moun tain City Const

r. Co. , 632 S.W .2d 538, 541 (Tenn. 1982). He directs our attention to photogr aphs that we re ma de exhibits at trial to demonstrate that the bui ld-out was not “c onstructed in a workmanlike manner .” Moore also argues t hat t hese photogra phs support his contention that the trial cour

t’s decision is ag ainst the weight of the evide nce.
We have c are fully

revie wed the a

ppellate r ecor d, including the photogr aphs noted by Moore. Giving ap p r o p r iate d e f

e r e n c e to th e c r e d ib il it

y d e te r mi n ati o n s ma d e b y

th e tr ia l c o urt w it

hr e g ard to the experts and other w itnesses, we c annot say that t h e evide nce pr eponder ates a g ainst the trial-3-

court’s implicit finding that Boles did not br eac h any implied warra

nties, or ag ainst the trial cour t’s ultimate decision.

Th e de c isi on

of the tr ia l c ourt

is a ff ir me d. Th e c os ts of thi s a

pp e a l are taxed

to t he a pp e lla nts Timothy Moore a nd Moore F amily

Medicine, PL L C, and their sure ty , for whic h execution may issue i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ HOL LY M. KI RBY, JUDGE