### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE N ove mb er

5, 200 8 S es sio n TOD D D . D INGM AN et u x, SH AR ON DIN GMA N, v. RAN DY GA RR ISON and D ONN A G AR RISO N
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forRhea County No. 25146 Hon. Bu ddy Perry, Cir cuit Judge

No. E2008-01141-COA- R3-CV - FILED MARC H 3, 2009

This is a fac tual dispute about whether defe ndant signed a lease as a te nant and is liable unde r the te rm s o f the le a se . T he Tria l Co urt he ld d e fe nd a nt l ia ble fo r d a ma ge s u nd e r the le a se
. W e a ff ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d.

H ER S CHEL P ICK EN S F R ANKS , P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which C H A RL ES D. S US ANO , J R ., J., and D. M I CHAEL S W I NEY , J., joined.
J. Arnold Fitzgera ld, Dayton, Tenne ssee, f or appe llant, Randy Garrison.
Michae l S. P ritchar d, Chattanooga, Te nnessee , for a ppellees, Todd D. Dingman et ux, Sharon Dingman.

OP IN ION

Plaintiffs broug ht this action a g a in s t R a

n d y a n d Donna Ga

rrison, def

endants, a lleg ing that de f e n d a nts le a s e d r e s ide ntial property

from plaintiffs, a

nd ag ree d to maintain the lease d premises and to p ay fo r a ny dama g e s to the pr e mis e s. Pla int if fs a ve rr e d th a t de fe nd ants re sid e d in the ho me from Nove mber 2004 to Oc tober 2005, a nd that afte r they

moved out, plaintiffs discover ed that de fe nd ants ha d d on e su

bs tanti a l da

ma g e to t he pr op e rt

y and fa ile d to pa

y the re nt f or the la st m on th of occ upancy . Plaintiffs sought dama g es in the amount of $9,296.93, plus intere st.

Randy Gar rison answe red, g ener ally denying the alleg ations i n the Complaint, and at the trial on April 7, 2008, the Trial Court awa rded a defa

ult judgme nt ag ainst defe ndant Donna-2-

Gar rison, and ente red a

J udg ment of $9,296.93 ag ainst both defenda nts. Randy Gar rison has appe aled.
We refr ame the issue on a ppeal as whether the Tria l J udg e er red in findingthat defe ndant Gar

rison signe d the lease and wa s essentially a co- tenant with Donna G arr ison.
Gar isson arg ues the Tr ial Court err ed because he did not sign the lease and ther efor e wa s n ot l ia

ble un de r i ts t e rm s. Th e tr ia l c o u

r t ’ s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t c ome to t

his Court wi th a pr e sumpt ion

of c or re c tne ss, un le ss t he e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s o the rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) . T he e vid e nc e in t his c a se is t h at R an dy

Ga rr i s o nwa s s ee nat t h e r es i d en ce i n qu es t i o n o na d ai l y b as i s , t h at h e h ads o m e d ea l i n gs with plaintiffs’ re ntal ag ent re gar ding r epair s, and re nt due, and that he applied to have the power tur ne d o n to the re sid e nc e , a nd that he ha d a

re latio ns hip wi th Do nn a Mo ore and kn e w s he he ld he rs e lf ou t a s his wif

e . H e c la ime d th a t he did

no t kn owsh e wa s si g nin g c he c ks on his a c c ount u

nti l he g ot his bank s t atement, but admitted that che cks we re w ritten over a period of 18 months. He c la ime d M oo re br ok e int o th e fu ne ra l ho me and

too k h is b lank

c he c ks , b ut a dmi tte d h e did no t f ile a police r eport. He claimed not to know any thing a bout the conditi on of t he house, but admitted that he wa s there a

t least 2 or 3 times a wee k. He also claimed not to have sig ned the lea se or a ny of the c he c ks , b ut t

he sig natur e on

the le a se and

so me of the c he c ks (i nc lud ingthe on e fo r t he se c ur ity deposit and first month’s rent) matches the signature on the utility application which he admitted he signe d, which is distinctly differ ent from Moore ’s sig nature , whether signingas Donna

Gar rison or Randy Gar rison.
The for eg oing e stablished that the evidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the Trial J udg e’s f indings of f

act, a s the Trial Court’s finding s wer e based in part on witness cr edibility

. See Bingham v. Dy ersburg Fabrics, Co., Inc. , 567 S.W .2d 169, 170 (Tenn. 1978)

.

Essentially , the Trial Court found this def endant was not a credible witness a nd was res p o n s ib le f

o r th e r e n t an d d a ma g e s u n d e r th e te r ms o f th e le a s e
. We a f

f ir m th e T r ial Court’s J udg ment and re mand, with the cost of the a ppeal a ssessed to Randy

Gar rison.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.