Thi s Cour t , w i t h t he conc ur r ence of a l l j udges pa r t i ci pat i ng i n t he ca s e, m ay aff i r m , r eve r s e or m odi fy t he 1

ac t i ons of

t he t r i al c our t by m em or andum opi ni on w hen a f or m al opi ni on w oul d have no pr ec ede nt i al val ue. W hen a ca s e i s de ci ded by m em or andum opi ni on i t s hal l be de s i gnat ed “M EM O RA N D U M O PI N I O N , ” s hal l not be publ i s hed, and shal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n any unrel at ed cas e.



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

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 8, 200 8 TOM SAL TER v . DARYL SANDERS Appeal from t he Circuit Court for C heatham County No. 5694 Robert

E. Bu rch, Judge

No. M2006- 02427-COA-R 3-CV - Filed Marc h 24, 2008

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

he ld that le sso r w a s e nti tled to ful l rent fo r s umm e r m on ths a lth ou gh the a ir c on dit ion ing wa s in op e ra ble . T he tr ia l c ou rt

re a so ne d th a t si nce les so r termin a te d th e mon th t o mon th t e na nc y mo nth s e arl ie r du e to the fa c t that le sso r d id n ot i nte ndto r e pa ir the HV AC sy ste m, the n le sso r s ho uldno t be pe na liz e d a ndre nt i s o we d f or tho se mon ths . W e a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Affir med
P AT R I C I A J. C OTTRE LL , P.J., M.S., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which A NDY D. B ENNETT and R I C HAR D H. D I NKI NS , JJ., joined.
Daryl Sanders, Na shville, Tennessee , Pro Se.
No brief filed by appe llee.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 In July of 2005, Tom Salter sued Da ryl Sanders in Ge nera l Sessions C ourt to rec over for nonpayment of r ent totaling $4,375. The Ge nera l Sessions C ourt awa rded Mr. Salter $4,610.61 and dis mis se d M r. Sa nd e rs ’ c ou nte rc omp la int . M r. Sa nd e rs app e a le d to the Cir c uit Cou rt

. A hearin g w a s h e ld b y th e tria l c o u r t o n Fe b ru ar y 6 , 2 0 0 6

. N o s te n o g r ap h ic r e p o r t or verbatim recording of

the hea ring wa s m ad e. Acc ordingly, we must rely on a Statement of the Evidence prepa

red by the trial court a nd filed pursua nt to Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c) f or our r ecitation of the fa c ts.M r. Salt e r te stifie d t h at t h e H V A C ’s pro b l em s ap p aren t l y s t em m ed fr o m da m ag e t o t h e d u ct w o rk b y M r. 2 S an d ers’ d o g s. -2- Beginning in 1994, Mr. Sanders re nted a house from Mr. Salter in Ashland City. The parties initially signed a one-ye ar lease , and Mr. Sanders paid a $752 security a nd clea ning de posit. When the one- year

lease expire d, Mr. Sanders held over, initially paying re nt of $725 per month which w as la te r r a ise d to $7 50 pe r m on th. Th is a rr a ng e me nt a

pp are ntl y s uit e d b othpa

rt ie s f or se ve ra l ye ars
. In20 04 , M r. Sa nd e rs inf

orme d M r. Sa lte r that the re we re pr ob le ms wi th the ho us e , n a me ly that the heating and cooling system (“ HVAC”) was not working pr operly. Mr. Salter inspected the HVAC and de termined that the air conditioning was not working at a ll and while the heat functioned adequately, it had diminis hed ca pacity.
Mr. Salter testified that on Dece mber 31, 2 0 0 4, he told Mr. Sander s that he wa s not going to fix the HVAC so Mr. Sande rs must leave the hous e. Mr. S alter said he tol d Mr. S ander s that he could re main in the house through Janua ry of 2005 r ent fre e. Although Mr. Salter testified he had aske d Mr. Sander s to vacate the pre mises, Mr. Sanders continued to live in the house past January of 2005 and paid no further rent. In May of 2005, Mr. Sa lte r a ga in tol d Mr

. Sa nd e rs to le a ve
. W he n Mr

. Sa nd e rs re fu se d to le a ve , M r. Sa lte r the n f ile d th is a c tio n to re c ov e r r e nt f

or 20 05 a ndre mov e Mr . Sa nd e rs fr om the pr e mis e s. Mr. Sander s testified that the HVA C system completely failed to wor k afte r De cembe r 29, 2004, and that Mr. Salter

did not tell him to vacate the premises. Acc ording to Mr. Sanders, f rom Ja nuary thru Au gu st o f 2 00 5 w he n h e le ft , M r. Sa lte r t oldhim he wa s n ot o bli gate d to pa y r e nt. Ac c or din g to Mr

. Sa nd e rs , Mr

. Sa lte r tol d him he c ou ld stay un til he c ou ld fi ndano th er sui ta ble ho us e to r e nt.
M r
. Sa n d e r s a g r e e d th a t it to o k lo n g e r to f in d a n o th e r h o u s e th a n e ith e r o f th e parties anticipated sinc e Mr. Sande rs had a collection of dogs a nd ca ts. Acc ording to the Statement of 2 Evidence , Mr. Sander s agre ed at the he aring that he should pay rent a fter May 31, 2005.
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s: 1. Notice wa s given to Defe ndant to quit the premises prior to Janua ry of 2005.
2. There was insuffic ient heat in the house during the winter of 2005.
3. There was no a ir conditioning in the house at all in 2005.
4. Rent was for given in January 2005.
5. No re nt wa s ow e d in Fe br ua ry a nd Ma

rc h 20 05 be c a us e the re wa s n o h e a t a ndthe ho us e was not habitable

.S i n ce C h ea t h am C o u n t y h as a p o p u l ati o n o f less t h an 6 8 ,00 0 a cc o rd i n g to th e 2 0 0 0 fe d era l c en su s, t h i s ca se 3 is n o t su b je c t t o th e U n ifo rm R e sid e n tial L a n d lo rd a n d T e n a n t A c t. T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 6 6 -2 8 -1 0 2 (a )( 1 ). -3- 6. De fe nd a nt ow e s re nt fo r the mon ths of Ap ri l, Ma y, Ju ne , July a nd Au gu st 200 5 at th e rate of seve n hundred f

ifty ($750) dollars pe r month. The lac k o f ai r conditioning does not diminis h the amount of re nt to be paid since Def endant was occupying the house against the wi sh e s of the la nd lor d a ndthe la nd lor d w a s u nd e r n o o bli gatio n to make the ho us e ha bit able for a tenant that he didn’ t want there

. 7. T h e s ev en h undred twe nty-five ( $725) dollar de posit shall be cre dited against the re nt owed. Only normal wea

r and te ar ha s been shown by the proof. 8. Judgment is awar ded to the plaintiff aga inst the defendant in the amount of three thousand tw e nty -f ive ($ 30 25 ) d oll ars
. 9. The c ounterc laim filed by Def endant is found to be without basis in law or in fa ct. The Court, theref

ore, f inds for the Counter D efe ndant and dismisses the same.
10 . Co sts of

the a c tio n a

re ta xe d to the de fe nd a nt.
Mr. S ander s appea ls the t rial court’s assessment of rent for April through August of 2005. Mr . Sa nd e rs do e s n ot c ha lle ng e dis mis sa l of his c ou nte rc la im f

or los t in c ome a nde mot ion a l di str e ss se e kin g $ 10 ,0 00 . T he la nd lor d, Mr . Sa lte r, ma de no app e aranc e on app e a l.
I. S TANDA RD OF R EVIEW
We r eview this ca se de novo on the re cord w ith a presumption of cor re ct n es s o f the trial c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t, u nle ss the prep on dera nc e of the e vid e nc e is o the rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 13 (d ); Brooks v. Brook

s , 992 S.W.2d 403, 404 (Tenn. 1999) . No pre sumption of corr ectne ss attache s to the trial court ’s decisions re garding que stions of law. Wilson v. Wilson , 984 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tenn. 1998) , cert. de nied, Oakle y v. W ilson , 528 U.S. 822, (1999).
II. A N A L Y SIS
Procee ding pr

o s e , Mr. Sanders argue s on appea l that he should not have been assessed the full rent for

April through Au g ust of 2005 since the air conditioning did not work. Mr. Sander s 3
rea sons that since the trial c ourt rele ased him fr o m re n t al obl igations for Februa ry and Ma

rch of 2005 for lac k of heat, the rent a ssessed for April through August of 2005 should likewise be eliminated or re duced f

or lac k of air c onditioning.
Before proce eding to discuss the merits of this case , it is i mportant to note that there is no qu e sti on that Mr . Sa nd e rs wa s o n a mon th t o mo nthte na nc y a ndthat Mr . Sa lte r a pp ro pria te ly terminated the tenanc y. The que stion in t his cas e co ncerns the terms upon which Mr . Salter terminated the lease , i.e. , how l ong Mr. S ander s could rema in in the premises re nt free . Likewise,-4-

it i s c ru c ia l to no te that th e land lor d inthi s matte r i s n ot e ve n a c c us e d o f w ithho ldi ng he a t or a ir conditioning in order to evict Mr. Sande rs. On the co n t ra ry, t he trial c ourt found that whe n the HVAC system b roke down, the landlord terminated the month to month before Ja nuary of 2005 tenanc y beca

use he did not wa nt to repair t h e s y s tem and, if the te nant chose to remain on the pr e mis e s d uring the su mme r, the n th e te na nt o we d r e nt.
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

a dd re sse d d imi nis he d r e nta l in its six th fi nd ing wh e n it fo un d the la c k of air c on dit ion ing didno t di min ishthe re nta l a mou nt s inc e Mr . Sa nd e rs wa s still on the pr e mis e s d e sp ite Mr . Sa lte r’ s w ish e s a nd , a s su c h, Mr

. Sa lte r ha d no ob lig a tio n to make the pr e mis e s h abit able . W hil e Mr . Sa nd e rs arg ue s th is r e su lt con tr a dic ts the tr ia l c ou rt ’s e arl ie r h old ing that no re nt w a s d ue in February and Mar ch due to lac k of heat, we ar e not per suaded.
W e no te th at th e re is n o p ro of in the re c or d th a t th is h ou se wa s n ot h abit able fr om A pril thr ou gh Au gu st o f 2 00 5 d ue to l a c k o f ai r co nd iti on ing

. Ab se nt suc h pro of , we fi nd no auth ority to find, as a matter of law, that the lack of air c onditioning renders a house uninhabitable. For e xample, we kn ow of

no thi ng that w ou ld p re ve nt a la nd lor d a ndte na nt f

ro m a gr e e ing to a low e r re nt d ue to the abs e n c e o f

a ir c o n d it io n in g , b u t w e ar e a ls o u n a w ar e o f a n y le g a l p r in c ip le th a t w o u ldr e q u ire them to do so. In any eve nt, any ar gument that Mr. Sander s tries to make a bout the habitability of the pre mises from April through August is underc ut by the fac t he chose to remain although he wa s told in Decembe r t hat t he air conditioning would not be fixed and that his lease term wa s terminated.
Ev e n if on e we re to ass um e th at the p re mis e s w e re no t ha bit able du e to l a c k o f air conditioning, this “appa

rent” inconsistency in the trial court’s ruling is c orre cted when one notes the trial court made no explicit ruling on the parties’ disagreement about whe n the lease term ende d. The c ourt found Mr. Salter gave Mr . Sanders notice “to quit the premises prior to Janua ry of 2005” and that no re nt was due in Janua ry. The parties agre ed on these two points. The trial c ourt’s ruling suggests the cour t i m p l i ci t l y held that the parties agre ed that Mr. Sande rs could re main until he found another hom e, that a reasonable period of time f or that to occ ur is the three month period of Jan u ar y t h ro u g h Marc h of 2005, that Mr. Salter ha d an obligation to maintain the premises in a habitable c ondition for this period which he failed to do, leading to the conc lusion that Mr. Sanders did not owe re nt for those months. Since Mr. Salter gave Mr. Sanders notice to va cate the pre mises be fo re Ja nu ary of

20 05 a nd(u nd e r the int e rp re ta tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt ’s ru lin g) a re a so na ble tim e to fi nda no the r h ou se , M r. Sa lte r t he re a ft e r h a d n o o bli gatio n to main ta in the pr e mis e s in a ha bit able condition, and Mr. Sander s owed re nt for April through August of 2005. Finally, another way to view this case is that since the landlord ga ve notice f or Mr. Sande rs to vacate the prope rty, which he did not, the landlord was e ntitled to full rent past January. Since Mr. Salter did not appe al the trial c ourt’s finding that Mr. S an d er s owed no r ent for Febr uary a nd Marc h, then we c annot modify that portion of the judgment. The result might appear inconsistent to M r. Sa nd e rs , b ut i t is to h is b e ne fi t.
Acc ordingly, the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal a re ta xed to the appe llant, Daryl Sa nd e rs
.-5- ____________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE