S e ller s w e re n o t re p re se n te d b y a re a l es ta te a g e n t. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A pr il 22, 200 9 S es sio n RICHARD T.D. BET HEA, ET AL 

### . v. SO NG HEE HONG , ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelb y County No. CH-06-2287 A rnold B . Goldi n, Chan cellor

No. W2008-02553-C OA-R3-C V - Filed May 29, 2009

This appea l involves a dispute arisingout of a c ontrac t for the sa le of Appe llant’s house. After the contra ct was ex ecute d, Appellee s conducte d a home inspec tion which reve aled mold in the home’s
a ir du c ts. Ap pe lla

nts re fu se d to re pa ir

the a ir du c ts, and

Ap pe lle e s te rm inate d th e a g re e me nt. B oth parties f iled motions for summary judgme nt. The trial cour

t g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of Ap pe lle e s f

ind ingthat te rm inatio n w a s an ava ila ble re me dy

un de r t he te rm s o f t

he a g re e ment

. Findingno err or in this conclusion, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancer y Court Af firme d

J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W .S. and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., joined.
Gr e go ry D. Cot ton , M e mph is, TN , f or Ap pe lla nts Song Hee Hong, Collierville, TN, pr o s e
OP IN ION

Bac kgr ound Appellants Richar d T.D. Be thea and Phy llis B

. Be thea (“Seller s”) a re a marrie d couple who owned a home in Shelby

County , Tenne ssee. Appellees S ong Hee Hongand Sung Hee Hong Tak (“ B uy e rs ” ) ar e a lso a

marr ie d c ou

ple wh o e xpre sse d a

n inte re st i n p ur c ha sin g Se lle rs ’ h ome . O n July 12 , 2 00 6, the pa

rt ies ent ered int o a

“ Pur c ha se and

Sa le Ag re e me nt” in whic h B uy e rs a g re e d to purcha se the prope rty

for the pr ice of

$370,00 0

. T h e agr ee ment was ba sed on a standa rd for m pr e pa re d b y B uy e rs ’ r e pr e se ntativ e , Cy re -L e ike Re a lto rs

. 1-2-

As provided in the a g ree ment, Buy ers hire d Br adfor d Sterling to i n s p ec t the prope rty and prepa re a n inspection repor

t. His report c ontained seve ral re commendations for repa i r work a

nd sp e c if ic a lly no te d th a t: A musty odor wa s detec ted inside the house d u ri n g t he inspec tion. This condition can indicate an issue with the air ducts. Mold and mildew was obse rved on se vera l of the air reg isters within the hom e. Sug g est furthe r re view by a qualifie d contra ctor as a he alth/safety

prec aution.

B uy e rs re c e ive d th is r e po rt on July 18 , 2 00 6. Th e ne xt d ay , B uy e rs fo rw ard e d th e re po rt , a lon g wi th a list of require d repa irs to Sellers. Specifica lly , Buy ers asked Sellers to “ clea n air duc ts to remove musty odor inside house a

nd repla ce a ir reg isters with molds and mildews.” Sellers responde d on July 21 , 2 00 6. Th e y

a g re e d to mos t of

B uy e rs ’ r e pa ir

re qu e sts but refu sed to clean th e a ir du c ts. Sellers attac hed a s er v i ce report indicating that such clea ning w ould be impossible. On J uly 22, 2006, Buyers notified Seller s that the ag ree ment was ter minated and as k ed t hat all ea rnest money be re fu nd e d. Th e ne xt d ay , Se lle rs se nt B uy e rs a le tte r s tatin g that te rm inatio n w a s im pe rm iss ibl e and that B uy ers we re in de fault of the a g ree ment.
Sellers filed a co m p laint for bre ach of contra ct in Shelby

County Chance ry

Court on N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 6

. B u ye r s f i l e d anan s w e r , an d

t h e p art i e s t h e nc o n d

u c t e d l i m i t e d d i s c o v e r y. Ag ree ing that t h ere wer e no issues of disputed fa ct, both parties f iled motions for summary judgme nt. At issue was the meaning of two provisions in the ag ree ment: Par agra p h 2 0 and Para g ra ph8. D. Para g ra

ph20 wa s in se rt e d a s a

n ame ndme nt t o th e sta

nd ard fo rm a t B uy e rs ’ r e qu e st in o rd e r t o a lle viate the ir

c on c e rn s a

bo ut m old . It pr ov ide s: Parag raph 20 Spec ial Stipul ations: The following Special Stipulations, i f conf licting wi th a ny pr e c e din g pa

ra g ra ph , s ha ll c on tr ol:
This contrac t is continge nt upon a satisfac tory mold inspection to be done at tim e of home inspection. I f any

mold is found, purchase r has 2 da y s from rece ipt of the ho me ins pe c tio n to no tif

y se lle r t hat pu rc ha se r t e rm inate s th e c on tr a c t and a ll e arn e st money will be refu n d ed. P urcha ser non r esponse by the 2 day s period shall be deeme d acc eptanc e of the proper ty as is this condition.

Para g ra ph8. D. se ts o ut t

he pr oc e dure fo r h and lin g re pa ir re qu e sts : Parag raph 8.D . Buyer’ s I nspection Period and Re solution: With in 1 0 d ay s af

te r B ind ing Ag re e me nt Date , any ins pe c tio ns de sc ri be d h e re in s ha ll be made AND, by

written notice to Seller, B uy er sha ll either: (1) a cce pt the Property

in its present “AS I S” condition with any an d all faults and
no wa rr anti e s e xpre sse d o r i mpl ie d. Se lle r h a s n o o bli g a tio n to make re pa ir s;-3-

OR (2) furnis hSe ll e r

a c o p y o f an y an d a ll in s p e c ti o nr e p o rts an d a w r itte nli s t of items set forth in the i nspection report(s) which Buyer require s to be repa ired a nd/or repla ced in a

profe ssional and workma nlike manner

. * * * Se lle r s ha ll, by wri tt en n oti c e wi thi n 2 da y s a ft e r r e c e ipt

of no tic e of

re pa ir
re qu i r e m e n t s a c c e p t t h e r e p a i r p r o p o s a l i f t h e c o s t i s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s t a t e d in para g rap h t en (10). I f the c ost ex cee ds the limit , Seller shall submit to Buy er a counter repa ir proposal. Seller’ s failure to timely respond sha l l be dee med
a c c e pta nc e of B uy e r’ s r e pa ir

pr op os a l. Buyer sha ll, within 2 day s after rec eipt of Seller’ s repa ir proposal, e ither (1 ) a c c e pt S e lle r’ s c ounte r r e pa ir pr op os a l; OR (2) make a counte r re pair proposa l to Seller; OR (3) ter

minate this Ag ree ment with all Earne st Money ref unded to B uy er. Buyers a rgued that ter

mination was proper under Parag raph 8.D. Sellers argued that Parag raph 20 provided B uy ers’ exclusive remedy for r esolving problems with mold.
The trial co urt then conduc ted a he aringon the par ties’ competingmotions for summary jud g me nt. On

Se pte mbe r 9 , 2 00 8, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d a n o rd e r gra

nti ngsumma

ry ju dg me nt i n fa vo r of B uy e rs

. Th is or de r state d the g ro un ds fo r the c ourt ’s le g a l c on c lus ion and inc lud e d s pe c if

ic fi nd ing s:
4. Thi s Court is of the opinion that the case falls under the inspection par ag raph 8 of the c on tr a c t af

te r re vie wi ng the do c ume nts that ha ve be e n p ro vid e d to the Cou rt

. 5. That the inspection done by the Defenda nts’ was re ceive d from Home I nspection S e r v i c e s o n J u l y 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 an d w a s p r o v i d e d t o P l a i n t i f

f s / S e l l e r s o nt h e 1 9 t ho f

J u l y, 2006. 6. Th a t th e Plai ntif

fs /Se lle rs we nt t

hr ou g h th e do c ume nt, ho me ins pe c tio n r e po rt , and pre pare d response s thereto, the f irst of which was 1.B: clear a ir ducts to remove musty odor out of the inside of the hou se, and r eplac e re g isters with molds and mil de ws

. 7. That this provision was a ve ry signific ant fa ctor to the De fenda nt/Buy er. 8. That the re sponse that was r ece ived from Plaintiffs/Sellers included infor mation from HVA C service man re g ard i n g t he duct c leaningand that Plaintiffs/Sellers ag ree d to replac e or clea

n reg isters at t he front door entry of the home which is the subject of the c ontrac t for sale in this cause. 9. That there is no doubt that the HVAC inspection ref lected that the OWLFL EX duct work w as uncle anable and fur ther that the f

ac t t h at the duct wor

k was unclea nable doe s not satisfy

the Def endants/B uy ers r equest that it be c leane d.-4-

10. That the Defenda

nts/Buy ers had a particular interest in the cleaning of the duc t
w o r k an d t h a tt h e D e f

e n d an t s / B u ye r s r e c e i v e d

a r e s p o n s e b a c k

o nt h e 2 1 s to f

J u l y, 2006. 11 . That the De fe nd ants /B uy e rs re sp on de d with in two da y s of re c e ipt of

the re sp on se of the P laintiffs/Sellers on the 22nd day of J uly , 2006 and ex erc ised the choic e set out in para g raph 8 of

the contra ct for sa le which state s in effe ct that the Def endants/B uy ers c an ac cept the c ounter-pr oposal of the Pl aintiff/Sellers or make a counte r to their proposal or terminate the ag ree ment with a ll e arne st mone y to be ref unded to Def

endants/B uy ers in this cause

. 12. That the De fenda

nts/Buy ers responde d by terminating the contra ct for sa le and d e m an d i n g t h e r e tu r

no f t h e i r e ar n e s tm o n e y. 13 . T hat th is C ourt fi nd s that the te rm inatio n b y De fe nd ants /B uy e rs wa s in a tim e ly
manner and that they

are entitled to the return of their ea rnest money

.... The c ourt enter ed a judgme nt in favor of Buyers r epre senting the amount of the e arne st money and prejudg ment interest. The trial court, howe ver, did not award Buy ers’ attorney ’s fees bec ause the y appea red pr o se
. B o t hp art i e s f

i l e d m o t i o n s t o a l t e r o r a m e n d t h e j u d g m e n tu n d e r T e n n

. R

. C i v
. P

. 5 9

. 0 4

. In their motion, Buy ers as s erte d that they had bee n repr esente d by counsel duringa portion of the proce eding s and attac hed the a ffidavit of the ir attorney , W i lliam J eter . The trial c ourt ag ree d and found t hat Buy ers were entitled to attorney ’s fees under the t erms of the ag ree ment. The judg ment was then a

m ended to include attorney ’s fe es in the amount of $1,907.50. Plaintiffs then filed a timely notice of a

ppeal. On appe al, Sellers ra ise three issues, as stated in their br ief, for revie w:
1. Did the t rial court err

as a matter of law

by failing to interpret the pur chase and sale ag ree ment un de r p ara g ra

ph20 wh ic h w ou ld n ot h a ve a llo we d [B uy e rs ] to t e rm inate the c on tr a c t? 2. Did the trial cour

t err a s a matter of

law by interpre ting the pur chase and sale ag ree ment to allow [Buy ers] to terminate the c ontrac t based upon pa rag raph 8.D ? 3. Di d th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr in a wa rd ingthe de fe nd ants a tto rn e y fe e s?

Stand ard of Review

On appea l, the revie w of a trial court' s g rant of a

summary judgme nt presents a

question of law. B eca

use summary

j u d g ment involves questions of law only , our re view is de novo with no presumption of cor

rec tness aff

orded to the tria l court' s determination. Teter v. Re pub lic Pa rking Sys., Inc. , 1 81 S.W. 3d 33 0, 33 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 5) ; Bai n v . W e lls , 936 S.W .2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997)

. Summary judgme nt is appropriate only when " there is no g enuine issue as to any materia l fac t and th e mo vi ngpa

rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. " Te nn . R. Civ . P. 56 .0 4; We st v . E. T en n . P ioneer Oil Co. , 172 S.W .3d 545, 550 (Tenn. 2005). When the materia l f acts reg ardi n g a-5-

controlling issue are undisputed, summary judgme nt is an appropr iate mea ns of dec iding that issue. By rd v . Ha ll , 847 S.W .2d 208, 214-215 (Te nn. 1993).

Ana lys is

I n the pre sent ca s e, the facts ar e undisputed. The only issue involves the trial cour t’s interpre tation of the Ag ree ment. I n resolvi ng a dispute involving the meaningof a c ontrac t, “our task is to ascer

tain the intention of the par ties based upon the usual, natura l, and ordinar y meaning of the c ontrac tual lang uag e.” Guilian o v. Cleo, Inc. , 9 95 S.W. 2d 88 , 9 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . I f t

he te rm s of the contract are unambiguous, the deter mination of t he parties’ i ntent is a question of law f or the court. Wa rren v

. M e tro . G ov ’t of Na shv ill eand Da v ids on Co unty , 9 55 S.W. 2d 61 8, 62 3 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 1997). Provisions in a contra ct “should be c onstrued in har mony with eac h other, if possible, to promote c o n s is te n cy

and to avoid re pug nancy

betwee n the var ious provisions of a single contra ct.” City of Cookeville v. Hum

phrey , 1 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d

8 9 7 , 9 0 4 (T en n

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Gui lia no , 995 S.W .2d at 95). In doing so, c ourts should read the contra ct in its entirety to det er m i n e i f o ne provision modifies, limit s, or explains another provision. Associated Press v. WGNS, Inc. , 348 S.W .2d 507, 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).
Sellers ar g ue that Para g raph 20 lim its Buyers ability to reque st repa irs under Parag raph 8.D

. I f mol d is fo un d duri ng the ho me ins pe c tio n, Se lle rs a sse rt that B uy e rs on ly re me dy is to t e rm inate the contra ct within two day s as provided in P ar agr ap h 2 0

. We disag ree . Readingthe provisions tog e the r, it a

pp e ars that B uy ers c ou ld l oo k to e ith e r p ro vis ion a s a re me dy in t he e ve nt m old

is discovere d. Buyers c ould either c ance l the ag ree ment immediately under Parag raph 20 or ask the Sellers to perf

orm repa irs under Par ag raph 8. The trial court spe cifica lly found that B uy ers we re ve ry c on c e rn e d a

bo ut m old

in t he ho me . A c c or din g ly , w e do no t re a d th e a g re e me nt t o li mit B uy e rs ’
re me die s w ithres pect to mol d. To do so wo uld ig no re the c le ar i nte nti on s o f t he pa rt ie s. F ur the rm or e , b y

purs uin g a re me dy un de r Par a g ra ph 8, B uy e rs a c tua lly

g a ve Se lle rs an o pp or

tun ity to f ix the problem. Acc ording ly , we ag ree with the trial court’ s finding that Parag raph 8.D controlled the dispute.

Se lle rs a lso a rgue t hat Buy ers cou ldno t ca ncel th e agreeme ntun der P aragraph 8 b ecaus e th eir ini t i al repa ir proposal wa s improper. Spec ifically , Sellers ar g ue that B uy ers c ould not cance l the
a g re e me nt be c a

us e of Se lle rs ’ i na

bil ity to c le an th e a ir

du c ts. Th e a g re e me nt, ho we ve r, sp e c if ic a lly allows Bu y ers to ins pect the he ating and air conditioning sy stems for, amongother thing s, mold. After the inspection, the ag ree ment allows Buyer to pr ovide “a written list of items se t forth in the ins pe c tio n r e po rt (s ) whic h B uy e r r e qu ir e s to be repa ir e d a nd /or re pla c e d. ” He re , B uy e r’ s r e pa ir proposal included a

reque st that Sellers clea

n the air d u ct s beca

use of a problem indicate d in the ins pe c tio n r e po rt . T he a g re e me nt’ s o nly lim it o n B uy e rs ’ r ig ht t o r e qu e st r e pa ir s is c on ta ine d in Para g ra ph8. A. , w hic h p ro vid e s: Buyer w aives a

ny objections to matters of pur ely cosmetic nature disclosed by inspection. Buyer ha s no rig ht to require repa irs or alter ations purely to meet cur

rent building code s, unless require d to do so by g overnme ntal authorities.-6-

Her e, B uy ers’ reque st for repairs w as base d, in part, on cosmetic c oncer ns (i.e., the “ musty

odor”)

. The primar

y basis for the reque st, how ever , was B uy ers’ broade r hea lth concer n about mold in the house. B uy er’ s reque st that Sellers clea n the air duc ts was t here fore permissible under the
a g re e me nt.
When Seller s rec eived Buyers’ reque sts, they had two options under the a g ree ment: acc ept the re pair proposa l or submit a counter r epair proposal. Sellers opted for the latter. Afte r re ceiving Sellers’ c ounter proposa l, Bu y er s t hen had thr ee options, one of which wa s to terminate the
a g re e me nt. B e c a

us e the ir ini tia l r e pa ir

pr op os a l w a s p ro pe rl y

ma de , B uy e rs we re wi thi n th e ir ri g hts to terminate the ag ree ment under Par ag raph 8.D . There fore , we a ffirm the tria l court’s findingthat Buyer’ s proper ly

terminated the ag ree ment and we re e ntitled to the return of the ear nest money

. Sellers also ar g ue that the tria l court err ed in a war ding the attorney ’s fee s of Buyers. Under the terms of the contra ct, if either pa rty files suit for bre ach, “ the pre vailing pa rty shall be entitled to rec over all costs of such enfor ceme nt, including r easona ble attorne y ’s fe es.” O n appea l, Sellers
asser t that Buy ers a

re not e n t i t l ed to attorney ’s fe es as pr ovided in the ag ree ment beca use B uy ers failed to ma

ke a claim to r ecove r those fee s. Sellers argue that Tenn. R. Civ. P

. 1 3

. 0 1 require d Selle rs t o asser

t a claim for

attorney ’s fe es in their plea dings. Seller s, howeve r, fa iled to raise a n objection on this iss ue in the trial c ourt. Acc ording ly , the issue is waived. See Bla c k v. Blo unt , 938 S.W .2d 394, 403 (Tenn. 1996) (“U nder Te nnessee law, issues ra ised for the first time on appea l are waived.” ). The tr ial court’s or der a war ding a ttorney ’s fe es is there fore aff irmed.

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Costs of this appe al ar e taxed to Appellants, Richard T.D. B ethea and Phyllis B. Be thea.

_ _ _ ________________________________ J. STE VEN STAFFORD , 

### J.