### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Septem ber 2, 2003 Session DAVID T. SEARS, ET AL 

### . v. CHARLES GREGORY, ET AL 

### . Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 01C-2936 Barbara N. Haynes, Judge

No. M2002-02771-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 23, 2004

Plaintiff homeowne

rs sued D efenda

nt pest co ntrol o perator s for negligent misrepresenta tion and breach of warranty

relative to the issuance by the Defendants of a

wood destroying

insect infestation inspection report pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-21-201 to 206. Thetrial court granted summary judgme

ntto Defendants. B ecause civil liability is limited by section 62-21-202 and Plai ntiff s alle ge no damages caused by the presence of wood-destroy ing insects, weaffirm the judgmen t of the tr ial cour t. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed and Remanded

W IL LI AM B. C AIN , J., delive red the o pinion of t

he court , in which P AT RICIA J. C OTT RELL , J., joined. W IL LI AM C. K OCH , J R ., P.J., M.S., filed a dissenting opinion.

Lawrence H. Hart, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, David T. Sear s and wife, Anita G. Sears, David T. Sears as natural guardian a nd next friend of M.L.S., a minor and B.S., a minor.

M. Bra dley Gilmore and Ka thleen W. Smith, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Cha rle s Gr eg or y, d/b/a Charles Pe st Control a nd Charle s O’Bri en, indivi dually and seve rally , Western

Surety Co mp an y.
OPINION

David T. Searsand Wif

e, Anita G. Sears, were first time home buy ers in the market for a moderat ely p riced home. Mrs. Mar garet L. Jone s owned su ch a home located at 3815 Ma

ry dale Courtin Nashville. This home was located near to Mrs. Sears’ place of employment and she observed a Crye-L eike Realtor “for sale” sign in the fr ont yard. At the suggestion of their home loan originator, they contacted real estate agents Sandra Hill and Michelle Thatche r, d/b/a “The Buyer’s Agent.” The Sears signed a contract with the buy er’s agent under whi ch th ey would pay Hill and Thatcher 3% of the sale price of a ny home that they

purchased. They

looked at two or three other-2-

properties with their agent but settled on the Mary dale Court residenceand made an offer of $79,900 for the prope rty . This offer w as reje cted, but ultimately , Mrs. Jones accepted their offer of $83,000.
As it relates to termites and wood destroy ing insects, David Sears testified:
Q. As you

sit here today , do you have - - what is your first recollection of thinking about, hey, w e need an inspection or we are going to g et an inspection for termitesor other

wood-de stroy

ing inse cts? A. What would b e my concer ns? Q. WhatI am a sking is when - - as y ou sit here today, whe n was the f

irst time that you reca

ll even thinking about that issue? A. At clo sing. Q. So prior to c losing, you don’t have any rec ollection of even discussing that issue with Ms. Hill or Ms. Tha tcher or even thin king ab out it? A. No. Q. Did

you and Ms. Hill or Ms. Thatcher or any

body from The B uyer’s Agent ever talk about the fact that y ou should have a home inspection done? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about the discussions there. A. She talke d us out of it. Q. Did you bring it up or did she br ing it up? A. She brought up if we wanted a home inspection. And I said, Ye s. And I

said how mu ch would it cost. And she said $400. And I said we don’t have $400. And she said y

ou don’t really

need it . All they

are go ing to do i s check out your

plugs and stuff. Q. By who? A. Ms. Hill.
Plaintiffs made no inspections themselves in the crawl space or by testing the floor boards or probing the walls prior to the closing on March 9, 2001.

The inspection by the Def e ndants, wh o provided to the buyer s on behalf of the sellers the wood destroying

infestation inspection report in issue in this case, occurred on Febr uary 22, 2001. Neither of the Plaintiffs ever had any co nt ac t w it h D ef

en da nt s, Ch ar le s O ’B ri en or Ch ar le s G re go ry, until well after the date of closing and after they had disco vered mo isture and mold prob lems with the house.

The facts up

to this poin t of th e chron ology are ess entially undispute d. Indeed, the

re is little material dispute as to the fa cts of the case. H owever , the facts subsequ ent to the closing on March 9, 2001 reveal something of a nightmare to Plaintiffs. As this case is before the Court on summary-3-

judgment, the recitation

of the facts is subject to the caveat that the facts ar e foundand considered by t he Court in

the ligh t most favo

rable to Plaintiffs. Byrd v. H

all , 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993).

Withindays afte

r moving into the home, Plaintiffs began to experience nasal irritation and
severe headaches. These sy mptoms were accompanied by a burning sensation i n the eyes a nd disagr eeable odors. Plaintiffs first removed their newly installed carpet

from thei r bedroom on the
a ssumption that it was a causal factor of their sy mptoms. They then called Home Depot, who suggested the installation of a plastic vapor bar rier in the crawl space under the house. When this didnot alleviate the p

roblem, th

ey called St eamatic of Nash vill e for an evaluation of their house. Next, they called Te

rminex and, f

ollowing Terminex’ inspection, installed new ventilators and applied timbor, a chemical designed to control excessive moisture.

The basic pr

oblem is pr

obably best expla

ined in the report of J. Scott Warrington, senior inspector for Inspection Services by Scott. Said Mr. Warring ton:

Conclusions

And Recom

mendat ions : Mold

spores are present every

where except where special “clean room” c onditions are maintained. Therefore the mere presenceof mold

does not mean there is a problem. However, wher e there is a food
source and sufficient moisture the colonies will grow and mul tipl y produci ng a reserv oir of spore s. This increased activity can pose a

health threat depending on the individua ls exposed and the type

of mold. Th

is resultsfrom expos ure to my cotoxins. These a re a by product o f growth and ar

e toxic to humans.

The pattern of

moisture in the walls (more dampness near the floor) indicates the moisture i s coming

from below and wicking into the absorbent material of the drywall. First pr

iority should be g

iven to en suring t

hat the source of

mo isture is eliminated. The installation of ventila tion equip ment and a

moisture b arrier

should be of considerable help in this situ ation. Treating the effected a reas with a sanitizer/mildewcide such as sodium hypo c hlorite so lution is sug gested . A supply of dehumi dified a

ir to the c rawl spa ce would also be he

lpful.

Commercial dehumidifiers should be used to assist in d rying the walls. Baseboards can be removed and ho le s d ri ll ed th at al lo w a cc es s t o t he wa ll ca vi ty. Using negative pressure, damp air canbe sucked out of the wall cavity and replaced withdrier air. When the walls are dried to normal level of moisture content and the humidity is maintained below 50% reservoirs of mold growth will no longer be a problem. This dry

ing should be able

to be acc omplished

in approxima

tely 2 day s. After dr yin g, the b aseboar

ds are r eplace d covering the h oles.

Air removed from the walls should enter a HEPA filter to remove any spor

es and mycotoxins from the air. Simply exhausting the air into the home can spread the mold spore s.1 Th is spec ific repo rt is the s ubject of Tennessee Code Annotat ed secti on 62-21-201 to 206 wherei n it s purpose,
con tents and effect are spec ifically set forth.
-4-

For added assurance, a mildewcide ca n be appl ied to the

inside of the wall cavity usin g a sprayer with a nozzle extension that fits through the holes atthe base of t he wa ll. These

opening s can als o be used with a fib er optic

inspectio n tool to examine the inside of the wall cavity f or mold.

Charles Pe st Co nt ro l i s a n i nd iv id ua l p ro pr ie to rs hi p o wn ed by D ef en da nt Ch ar le s G re go ry. At the time of the February 22, 2001 inspection at 3815 Maryda le Court in Nash ville, Charles O’Brien was an employee of Charles Gregory and was in the process of buy ing the business from Mr. Gregory . Charles Pest Control was contacted by agents of theseller

for the purpose of providing to the buyersa

wood-destroying

insect infestation inspection report. Charles O’Brien inspecte d the propert y on February

22, 2001, after which he prepared and signed t

he repor t. 1 The report states that the inspector found “ No Visible evidenc e of a wo od destr oying insect inf

estation. ”(empha sis in original). The report further made exception as to inaccessible ar eas, same being insulation in the crawl space, fixed ceilings, fixed wall coveri ng, fl oor covering, and cabinets or shelving . Mr. O’Brien made no notation of any kind on the re port about moisture in the crawl space or wide spread mold, although in deposition he acknowledged that at the time of

his inspection, 80% of the crawl space was affected by

mold.

The only defenda nts inthis case are the two men who operated Charle s Pest Contro l. Their liability fo r e it he r n eg li ge nt mi sr ep re se nt at io n o r b re ac h o f w ar ra nt y depends entirelyupon the wooddestroying

insect infestation inspection report of February 22, 2001. This particular report is on a fo rm prescr ibed by the National Pest Mana gement Association and the United States Department of Housin g and Ur

ban Deve lopment.
In granting

summary judgme

nt to Defendants, the trial court held:

As ground s for its decis ion, this Court finds that the gravamen of the pla intiffs’ claims are negligent misrepre sentation under § 552 of the Restatement (S eco nd) of Torts, as that section has been adopted in Tennessee, a nd breach of
warran ty as set forth in s ubsection (c) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-21-202. To be
success ful, bothclaims re quire the plaintiffs to have detrimentally relied on a misrep rese ntation or false statement made by the defendants, or on a warranty that has been breached. The undisputed facts of this case show, howe ver, that the defenda nts did not mak

e any false sta te ment o r misrepresentation upon which the plaintiffs reliedto their detriment in the Wood Destroying Insect Infestation Report given to the plaintiffs by defe ndant Charles O’Brien, nor did the defendants breach the warran ty crea

ted by the statute cited a bove. The defendants are, theref ore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 This hi st ory and o ri gi n of Chapt er 66 8 of

th e Publ ic Act s of

2000 wa s de ter

min ed f rom Re presentative Od om’s remarks t o the House Commerc e Commit tee on March 7, 2000 and to the House Sess ion on April13, 2000. The bill was sponsor ed by Represent ativ e Odom in the House and Senator Henry i n the Sena te.
-5- This particular HUD form had been in existence long pr ior to Chapter 668 of

the Public Ac ts of 2000, effective July 1, 2000. Howe ver, the 2000 Act of the

legisla ture wasenacte d in respo nse to the deci sions of th

is Court in Fuller v. Feingold , No. 02A01-9809-CV-00252, 1999 WL 250182 (Tenn.Ct .App.Apr

il 28, 1999), and Walker v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc. , No. 01A01-9809-CV00492, 1999 W

L 722639 (Tenn.Ct.App.Sept. 17, 1999). 2 Both of th ese cas es involved actual

termite infestations and resulted in judg ments for the defe ndants on a basis that the plaintiffs could not prove that the wood-destroying

insect infestation was present at the time the report was issued, rather than first appearing at some time subsequent thereto.
Chapter 668 of the Acts of

2000 amended Tenn

essee Co de Annota

ted sect ion 62-21- 102 to add a n ew defi niti on, sa me bei ng:

“Wood destroy

in g insect inf

estation inspection report” means a report written by a chartered commercial

pest c ontro l oper ator em ploying a person licensed in the catego ryo f wood destroying organisms. The report shall indicate the presenc e or absence of visible

wood dest

roy ing inse cts a nd the pre sence or absence of visible damage caused by suc

h insects andshall be issued after an on-site inspection of the pr op er ty.

The Act also p

rovided f or a new Part to the

Code entitled “ Wood Destroying I nsect Infestation

Insp ection Re

ports” a nd now cod

ified as s ection 62 -21-201 t o 206 . In pertine

nt part, th is section p rovides a s follows:

62-21-201. Perso ns authorized to issue repo rts – P ersonsauthorized to conduct ins pections.– Wood destroying insect inf estation inspectio n report s, as definedin this chapt er, issued in conjunction with the sale or transfer of any real pro perty s hall only be issued by a chartered pest control operator lice nsed, or employing

personne l license d, in the c ategor

y of wood dest

roy ing org anisms. On

ly those persons licensed in the categ ory of wood de stroy

ing org anisms or c ertifie d in the category

of industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control working under the direct supervision of one licen sed in the category of wood destroying

organisms are aut

horiz ed to conduct inspections for wood destroy ing insect inf estation r eports.

62-21-202. Contents of report – Warranty – Civil l iability . – (a) A
woo d destroying

insect infestation inspection report issued by a chartere d pest contro l operator evidences the presence or abse nce of visible wood destroy i ng insects and the presenceor absence of visible damage c aused by such insects noted on the day the-6-

inspection is made. Obstructions and inaccessible area s sh all be so noted in the report. (b) The wood destroying insect infestat ion in spection report shall be submitted on forms prescribed by the National Pest Management Association and the department

of housing and urban development. In a ddition to other information, the report shall include the address of the property , a graph or other diagr am showing the layout of the prope rty, the a reas of damage or active infestation (if any) , the name of the license d or cer

tified em ploy ee cond

ucting t he inspection, the p est control operat or name, address and char ter num ber, the date of the inspection and any recommendations for corrective action. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the c ontrary, a wood destroying

insect infestation inspection report is a warranty for ninety (90) days of the accuracy

of any repres entation s in such in spection report. (d) The person to

whom a wood destroying insect infestation inspection report is issued may recove

r from the warrantor

for breach of warranty

compensatory damage s, including all repa ir costs which are proximately re lated to the warranty

as provided in § 62-21-203. (e) Any person knowingly issuing a false report or who issues a repor t withoutmaking a

phy sical insp ection of

the site sh all be liable

in treble the amount of damage s resulting from o r incide nt to the br

each of the warr anty . The par

ty injured b y su ch brea

ch may bring su it for the breach and for s uch dama

ges.
62-21-203. Remedies

. – Disputes wh ich c annot be resolved between propert y owners, lenders, and/or trustees an d p ersons issuing a wood destroy ing insect infestation inspection report may be resolved in a co urt of appro priate jurisdiction. Prior to filing a suit for compensatory damages, the

issuer of the report shall be givenan opportunity to inspect the premises and to off er within thirty (30) da ys of such inspection a proposal for repair and tre atment of the pre m ises. Not withstand ing any

other pr ovision of

law or rule to the c ontrary , if the pr operty
owner files suit prior to offering the issuer of the repo rt an oppo rtunity to inspect and propose repairs and treatments as required by this section, the issuer of the report shallhave, in addition t o the thir ty (30) day s in which to answer the complaint as providedin Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, another thirty (30) da ys from the service of the s ummons and complaint within which to inspect and propose repairs and

trea tments before being required to answe r the complaint. No propert y owner or lender shall be required to engage in an alterna

te dispute resolution processbefore

filing a suit for c ompensat

ory damage s. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 620-21-201 to 203 (Supp.2001).3 Ho w this war ranty ca n be a pplie d in ac tual pra ctice is diffi cult to i magine, as the expert proof i n both Walker

and Fuller

establ ish t

he potent ial forrapi d growt h of termites in the spr ing and that term ites can e nter a ho me o ver nigh t.

4 The evi dence di scl oses a prev ious ter mit e in fes tation, toge ther wit h an i nfe sta ti on of carpenter bees, but t here is no all egati on that

these wood-destr oying i nsect inf estat ions cau sed any of the damag es r esul ti ng t o Plai nti ff s. All of the damages are al leged t o resul t fr om extensi ve fung us mold i nfest ation brought about by excess ive mois ture.
-7- The effect of

Chapter 668 of the Public Acts of 2000 is to prevent results similar to Fuller
a nd Walker

by casting

upon the licensed pest control operator the burden of any wo od destro yin g insect inf estation t hat migh t occur within ninet

y da ys o f his rep ort. 3

The difficulty for Plaintiffs in this case is that there is not now, and never has been, a wood destroying

insect infestation which is proximately related to the damages they

seek to recover from Defend ants. 4

The expert witness affidavits offered by Appellants seek to e stablish a standard of care far
more extensive than the limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-21-201 to 206. The affid avit of Philip Hurst, pesticide inspector for the Tennessee Depar tment of Agriculture, asserts in pertine

nt part:

B. REPOR T SECTION IV &IX - Mr. O’Brien made no addition a l comments in Section IV of the report. My inspection of the structure revealed that in the crawl space th

ere wa s obvious vi sible evid ence of conduciv e conditi ons to wood destroying

insects which was excessive moisture and insufficient ventilation. In additi on, the structure had a faulty grade which contributed to the excessive moist ure in the crawl space. The excessive moisture was immediately obv iou s because of the clearly

visible fungus and extensive mold that had developed on a substantial number of the wooden rafters in the crawl spa ce. While Sec ti on IX contains a consumer maintenance advisory for prevention of wooddestroy

ing inse cts, the advice given to consumers reg arding factors which may lead to infestation for

wood dest

roy ing insects also reflects the standard of care , or industry standar ds, that a re part of the ins pection a

nd repor t of a re sidence . This is because

the stand ard of c are for pest cont

rol oper ators, or industry standar ds, require not only that wood destroy ing insect infestation inspection and report note the presenceof visible evidence of inset infe st ation, but also conditions that are conducive to insect infestation. The report in

Section I I sta tes that th e repor t is “indic ative of the condition of the subje ct prope

rty .” A pest

control operator or

technic ian is tra

ined not on

ly to detect infestat ion, but al so to dete ct condit i on s that are conducive to infestation. Detecting conducive conditions allows steps to be take n to prevent insect infestation before it occur s which pr events the damag e to structures tha t r esult s from insect infestation. Like a dentist who se profe ssi onal practice does not just include the treatment of cavit ies, but a lso the prevention of cavities; a pest control operator’s-8-

professional practice does not just include the treatment of insect infestation but also the prevention of insect infestation. The most important conducive condition is mois ture since insects cannot exist, or infes t, without moisture. Moi st ure is a pr ere qui si te t o i nse ct i nfe st ati on. In other words, there will not be any insect infestation if there is no moisture, however if there is h igh or e xcessive mo isture, th

ere is a high pro bability that insect infestation will occur. Ac co rd in gl y, an inspection of the condition

of a stru cture mu st incl ude detecting conduciv e conditi ons for insect infestation that exist in the structure relating to moisture such as faulty g rade, the presence of excessive moisture, and insufficient ventilation.

The affidavits of

expert witness Mike Lefever a nd the expert witness Tim Green assert the
samestandar

d of car e relati ve to moistu

re as a condition which invites insect infestation. However, such a standard of care simply cannot be imposedin the face ofa statutory limitation that “[a] wooddestroying

insect infestation inspection report issued by a cha

rtered pest control operator evidences the presence or absence of visible wood de stroying insects and the presence or ab sence of

visible damage caused b y su ch insec ts noted on the day the inspection is made.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-21- 202(a)(Supp.2001). All of the damage complained of by Plaintiffs is caused, not by wood destroying insects, but by the effects of excessive moisture. If the obvious excessive moi sture c onditions observed not only by

Plaintiffs’ experts, but by Charles O’B rien himself, had led to a massi ve infestation of wooddestroying in sec ts , su mm ary j udg men t wo ul d ce rta in ly ha ve b een im pro per . If the previous termite infestation observed by the exper ts or the c arpente

r bees ob served b y the experts
were causative of the damages asserte d by Plaintiff s, summary judgme

nt would, likewise, have been improper.
However, the statutorily limited scope of a wood de stroying insect infestation inspection report simply cann ot form th e predicate to extend liability for the effects of excessive moisture complete ly divorced from wood destroy ing insects. The warr anty cr eated by Te

nnessee Code Annotatedse ction 62-21- 202 is not available to Plaintiffs except under the limited conditions set forth in that same statute. No misrepresentation of fact has been made within the limited scope of statutory require ment in the

wood-de stroy

ing inse ct infest

ation insp ection r

eport.

Assum ing, but not deciding, that Chapter 6 68 of the Pu blic Actsof 2000 a s codifie d in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 62-21-102 to 206 does not displace commonlaw remedies as to the wo od-dest

roying insect infestation inspection report, see Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. , 833 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tenn.1992), a negligent misrepr esentat ion ca se cannot be predicated upon any affirmative misrepresentations of fact mad e inthe February

22, 2001 r

eport. Suc

h case c ould only be made u

pon the ba sis of a fa

ilure to di sclose in

formatio n relativ e to moistur e conditi ons.

Our courts have pointed out consistently that liability for nondisclosure can arise only in the
c ases where the person being held re sponsible had a duty to disclose the fa cts at issue . Th e Tennessee Supreme court has held:5 Cha rles G rego ry and Cha rles O ’Brie n are n ot pa rties to the contra ct of sale , and the ir liability can only arise

from the alleged deficie ncies in th e wo od-d estroyin g insect in festation repo rt. While Pa tel v. Ba yliff , No. W2002-00238- COA -R3-Cv; 200 3 W L 11 932 48 ( Te nn.C t.App .200 3)(a pp.d enied Oc t. 6, 20 03) avoid ed R estatem ent (Se con d) o f To rts Secti on 551(1) r equir ement s f or neg li gent

misr epres enta ti on liability as sam e was a dop ted b y Macon C ounty Lives tock, by applying Simmons v. Evans , the Rest ateme nt Se cti on 551(1) requirements were apparently never raised in Patel as to the termite in spec tor. Su mm ary jud gme nt was gr anted in the trial co urt solely o n the b asis of lac k of justifiab le reli ance on the termite le tter. Th is case was reversed on appeal on the sole basis of a materi al issue of fact rela tive to reli ance. As to the ter mite i nspector, the Court of Appeals does not dis cuss t he requi rement s of

Rest ateme nt Se cti on 551(1). In any ev ent, P atel invol ved fai lure t o discl ose ter mite i nfest ations , past and present , wit

h resul tin g damages from such inf

estat ions. In th e case at

bar, t he undis closed conduci ve condit ions di d not conduce.

-9- In all cases, concealment or failure to disclose, bec omes fraudulent only when it is the duty of a par ty havi ng knowledg e of the f acts to discover them to t h e other p arty : 2 Pom. Eq., sec. 902 . And this author, in the same

section says: “All the instance s in which the duty to disclose exists and in which aconcea lment is the

refore fraudul ent, may be reduc ed to three distinct classes : 1. Where there is a previous definite fiduci ary relation betwee n the par ties. 2. Where it appears one or each of the pa rtie s to the contract expressly re

poses a trust and confidence in the other. 3. Where the contr act or tr ansa ction is int

rinsically fiducia ry and call s for

perfect good faith. The contra ct of insurance is an example of this last class.” Domestic Sewing Mach. Co. v. Jackson , 83 Tenn. 418, 424-25 (1885). See also Simmons v. Evans , 185 Tenn. 282, 285, 206 S.W .2d 295, 296 (1947); Dozier v. Hawthorne Development Co. , 37 Tenn. App. 2 79, 292-93, 262 S.W.2d 705, 711 (1953); Macon County Livestock Mkt. v. K entucky State Bank , 724 S. W.2d 343, 349 (Tenn.Ct.App.198 6); Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co. , 338 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2003).

The facts of this case disclose no fiduciary relationship between the parties. Plaintiffs had
never heard of Defendants pr

ior to the March 9, 2001 closing on the house. There is no evidenc e that Plaintiffs expressly reposed a t rust or confidence in Defendants, and the c ontract is not in tr in si ca ll y fi du ci ar y. 5
Taking our anal

ysi s one step further, as was done in Justice v. Anderson Co. , 955 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997), the mold and moisture conditions under the house were reasonably known or discover able by Plaintiffs. They

did not look under the house prior to closing and expressly rejected a home insp ectio n prio r to cl osin g.

It is difficult to stymie fi rst t ime homeowners when their dreams turn to nightmares, but practical considerations mandate such results. The former owners of the propert

y a re not defendant s. Plaintiffs had the op

portunity to have a home inspection made and were dissuaded f rom such action,-10-

notby t hese def endants, but by

their own real es tateagents. Plaintiffs did not purchase a pest control contract from these Defend ants or any other pest control operator but relied, alone, on a statutory inspection report, the scope of which is drastically limited by the statute.

The judgmen

t of the tr

ial cour t is in all re sp ects af

firmed, a nd costs a

re asse ssed to Appellan ts.

___________________________________ WILL IAM B. CAI

N, JUDGE