T en n. R

. C t

. A p p . 1 0 st ates: 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify 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 fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i a l v a l u e . W h e n a c a s e i s de c i de d b y me mo r a n du m o pi n i on i t s h a l l be de s i g n at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s h a ll no t be pub 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. 

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

AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 14, 200 5 S es sio n EDWA RD H. TEN ISON v. TH E P ENN WAR RA NTY CO RP ORA TION

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Lewi s County No. 3593 Robert

E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2004- 02605-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Novem ber 22, 2005
This appea l involves interpre tation of a war ranty contra ct for used cars. Since t he contr act pr ovided n o e x c l u s i o n f

o r a n i n a c c u r a t e o d o m e t e r , w e a f f i rmth e tri a l c o u rt ’ s e n f

o r c e m e n to f

th e w arr a n t y. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which W I L L I AM B. C AI N and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined. Michae l L . Weinman, J ackson, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Penn Warranty

Corporation. J ames R. Tomkins, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, E dwar d H. Tenison. M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION 1 The Penn Warr anty

Corporation (“ Penn”) appeals the judgme nt of the trial court enforc ing its warranty

contra ct with Mr. Edwa

rd Tenison to cove r mec hanica l defe ct s i n a 1 9 8 3 Merc edes Be nz. P enn claims it s warr anty lang uag e excluding c overa g e on ca rs w ith an “inoper ative odometer ” re nd e rs thec on tr a c t vo id w he n a c ar’ s odo me te r ha d be e n rol le d ba c k with ou t the kn ow le dg e of its owner . The fa cts arenot significantly in dispute. I n April of 2003, Mr. Te nison bought a 1983 Merc edes B enz 240D from his son’s used ca r dealership. When Mr. Tenison purc hased thecar , theW h e the r a tto rn e ys fee s a re a llo w e d un d e r M a g n u so n M o ss w a s n o t ra ise d o n a p p e a l. 2 -2- od ome te r s ho we d 7 1, 35 0 mi le s. Unbe kn ow ns t to Mr . T e nis onor his so n, themil e a g e wa s a c tually arou n d 2 5 0 ,000. This discrepancy arosebeca

use a third pa

rty had pre viouslytampere d with the odometer and rolled it back. Pe nnha d an a

rr a ng e me nt w ithMr . T e nis on ’s so n f or him to ac t as its ag e nt to s e ll w arr a nty contra cts on car s sold at his used car deale rship. Pursuant to that arrang ement, Mr. Te nison’s son so ld him a

wa rr a nty iss ue d b y Pe nna c tin g a s it s a g e nt. Th e so n te sti fi e d th a t be fo ree nte ri ng int o the contra ct, he c alled Penn to al er t t h em t h at he wa s selling a war ranty on a 20 y ear

old car

. Acc ording to the son, Penn expressed no objection to the transaction. During the war

ranty period, the car neede d cover ed re pairs totaling $9,522.18. Penn denied cover ag e base d upon the tamper ed odometer claiming it was an “ inoperative odometer” and wa s thus expressly excluded by

the terms of the war

ranty contra ct. Mr. Te nison filed suit in General Sessions Court which found that Mr. Te nison was entitled to rec over on the war ranty on J anuary

15, 2004. Pen n t h en ap p ealed to Circuit Court. Mr. Tenison filed an Ame nded Complaint on May 6, 2004, s e e k in g to r e c o v e r

d a ma g e s u n d e r

th e w arr a n ty

c o n tr a c t an da tt o rn e y ’ s f e e s u n d e r th e M a g nuson Moss W arr anty

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (“Ma g nuson Moss”). Afte r a he aring , the trial court found Mr. Tenison wa s not awar e of the odometer pr oblem and madeno misrepre sentations. The c ou rt a lso fo un d th a t w hil e thec on tr a c t pr ov ide d that an “in op e rativ e od ome te r” wo uldvo id cover ag e, an inacc urate odometer was a differ ent issue and did not void cove rag e. Mr. Te nison was a wa rd e d $ 9, 52 2. 18 fo r h is r e pair c os ts and$3 ,7 00 in atto rn e y ’s fe e s u nd e r M a g nu so n M os s. 2 Pe nnapp e a le d andarg ues , a lte rn a tiv e ly , th a t it s “ ino pe rativ e od ome te r” e xclu sio n c le arl y voided cove rag e, that the e x clusion was ambig uous making the contra ct void, and, finally , that the exclusion was so ambiguous as to nullify the meeting of the minds of the contra cting parties, thus rende ring the contra ct void. II. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW We review this case de novo on the re cord w ith a presu m p t i o n o f correc tness of the trial c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t, u nle ss t he prep onde ranc e of thee 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 corre ctness attac hes to the trial court’ s decisio n s re gar ding que stions of law. W ilson v. W

ilson , 984 S.W .2d 898, 900 (Tenn. 1998) , cert. de n. ; Oakleyv. W ilson , 528 U.S. 822, 120 S.C t. 68, (1999). II. A N A L Y SIS We beg in by

examining the contr act lang uag e and the meaning of “inope rative odome ter.” The wa rranty contra ct provided that an “inoper at i v e odometer” rende red the contra ct void. The interpre tation of a c ontrac t term is ge nerally a question of law since the w o rds are def inite and undisputed. Planters Gin Company v. Fe deral Compress & W arehouse Company Inc

. , 78 S.W .3dP enn al so rai sed as a defens e m i sr ep res ent at i o n by M r. T eni son. T he t ri al co urt heard t he wi t ness es and fo und 3

no m i sr ep res ent at i o n e x isted. T he t ri al co urt i s i n t he b est po si t i o n t o de t erm i ne cred i b i l i t y and co urt s o f ap p eal gi ve g re a t we igh t t o the trial c o u rt’s a sse ssm e n t. See B urt on v. W arr en F a rm ers C o - o p, 129 S. W

. 3d 513 ( T en n . Ct

. App. 2 0 0 2 ); Bow m an v. Bow m an , 8 3 6 S .W .2 d 5 6 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). P e n n ra ise d no e v id e n c e in the re c o rd tha t wo u ld p rep o nd era t e a ga i nst t he t rial co urt’ s f i nd i ng t ha t M r. T en i so n m ad e n o m i srep rese ntati o ns.

-3- 885, 889-90 (Te nn. 2002). I f the c ontrac t lang uag e is unambi gu o u s , t h e “li tera l meaning of the lang uag e contr ols the outcome of contra ct disputes.” Pl an te rs G in , 7 8 S. W.3 d at 89 0; Campora v. Fo rd , 124 S.W .3d 624, 628 (T en n . Ct. App. 2003). In construing contra cts, the terms should be g iven their usual, natural and or dinary meaning s. Pl an te rs G in , 78 S.W .3d at 889-90. The wa rranty cont ra ct p ro v i d ed itwas void if the c ar ha s an “inope rative odome ter.” The phraseis not ambiguous. I f the odomete r is not working , then it is inoperative. Penn introduce d no proof that the Me rce des B enz odometer did not work. Mr . Tenison testified that the odomete r seeme d to work fine. T hereis a diffe renc e betwe en an inope rable odometer and an inac curate one. Mr. Tenison could de termine if the odometer worke d befor e buying Penn’ s warr anty to determine whethe r t o buy

it. I f Penn had w anted to void the contr act dueto an inacc urate or rolled ba ck odometer, it could ha ve done so by inserting l an gu age i n t h e contr act to that ef fec t. I f Penn had excluded cover ag e base d on an inac curate, alter ed, or tampere d with odometer, then a person buying thewa rr anty wo uldun de rs ta ndthat a lth ou g h th e od ome te r w or ks , if it is ina c c ur a te the n thewa rr a nty contra ct is void. Penn’s ex clusion, howeve r, wa s expressly limit ed to an inoper ative odometer that is easily verifia ble by the purc haser

of the wa

rranty . Th er ef

o re , t h e risk that the odometer wa s inacc urate rested w ith Penn and not Mr. Tenison. Given that the c ontrac t war ra n t y l anguag e is clea r and unambiguous, weaff irm the trial court. Costs of this a

ppeal are taxed to Penn Warranty Corporation for which execution may issue 3 if nec essary . The matter

is re m an d ed t o t h e trial c ourt for a determination reg arding whether Mr. Tenison is entitled to his attorney ’s fe es on appe al under applicableauthority and the amount of such fe e s.

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE