Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1999

William K. Buchanan Jr. v. Kathy Young and Donnie Young - Concurring

William K. Buchanan Jr. v. Kathy Young and Donnie Young - Concurring
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Decided July 7, 1999 · Judge William H. Inman

William K. Buchanan Jr. v. Kathy Young and Donnie Young - Concurring

Opinion

IN T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S O F T E N N E S S E E FL E D I A T K N O X V IL L E J u ly 1 4 , 1 9 9 9 C e c il C r o w s o n , J r .

A p p e lla te C o u r t C le r k

W IL L IA M K . B U C H A N A N , J R ., ) R H E A C IR C U IT ) P la in tiff /A p p e lla n t ) N O . 0 3 A 0 1 -9 8 1 1 -C V - 0 3 8 7 ) v . ) H O N . J. C U R T IS S M IT H ) JU D G E K A T H Y Y O U N G a n d D O N N IE ) Y O U N G , ) ) D e f e n d a n t s /A p p e lle e s ) A F F IR M E D

S t e v e n D . B r o w n , C h a tt a n o o g a , f o r t h e A p p e ll a n t.

J a m e s W . M c K e n z i e , D a y t o n , f o r th e A p p e lle e .

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N IN M A N , S e n io r J u d g e T h e p la in tiff , a re s id e n t o f H a w a ii, c o n tra c te d to b u y D & K A u to S a lv a g e f r o m th e d e f e n d a n ts in A u g u s t 1 9 9 4 , f o r $ 4 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . H e e m p lo y e d T o m G a rg o n e to m a n a g e t h e b u s in e s s .

T h e tra n s a c tio n w a s re d u c e d to w ritin g b y G a rg o n e . T h e c o n tra c t p ro v id e d th a t th e p la in t if f w o u l d p a y $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 . 0 0 c a s h d o w n , a n d th e b a la n c e in 3 0 d a y s .

T h e p l a i n t i f f w a s u n a b l e t o n e g o ti a te a p u r c h a s e - m o n e y l o a n , a n d th e p a r t i e s o r a l l y a g r e e d t o a m e n d th e c o n t r a c t b y e x t e n d in g th e ti m e fo r p a y m e n t o f t h e b a l a n c e a n a d d i t i o n a l 3 0 d a y s i n c o n s i d e ra ti o n o f a n o th e r p a y m e n t o f $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 .

A g a in , t h e p l a i n t if f c o u ld n o t p e rf o r m , a n d a s e c o n d o r a l a g re e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d , w h e r e b y t h e p la in t i f f a g re e d t o p a y $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 o n N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 4 , $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 o n J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 , a n d m o n th ly p a y m e n ts o f $ 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 b e g i n n in g N o v e m b e r 1 , 9 9 4 .

T h e p la in tiff to o k p o s s e s s io n o f th e b u sin e ss u p o n e x e c u tio n o f th e w ritte n c o n tra c t. H e o p e ra te d th e b u s in e s s a s P a rts M a rt, In c ., b u t n e v e r m a d e a p p lic a tio n f o r a c h a r te r . T h e p l a i n t i f f h a d n o e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e a u t o s a l v a g e b u s i n e s s , a n d le f t a l l t h e m a n a g e m e n t d e c is i o n s t o G a rg o n e . D u r i n g t h e fo u r m o n t h s t h e p la in t i f f o p e ra te d th e b u sin e ss p e r G a rg o n e , h e p a id th e d e fe n d a n t th e a g g re g a te a m o u n t o f $ 6 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . T h e p ri n c ip a l p a y m e n t o f $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 a n d th e m o n th ly p a y m e n t o f $ 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 d u e J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 w e r e n o t p a id , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a d e t a i n e r a c tio n in th e G e n e r a l S e s s i o n s C o u rt w h ic h re n d e re d a n o rd e r o f p o s s e s s io n 1 to th e d e fe n d a n ts .

T h e p l a i n t if f f i le d t h i s a c t io n f o r d a m a g e s f o r b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t o n F e b r u a ry , 1 9 9 6 , a ll e g in g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s o b t a in e d th e o r d e r o f p o s s e s s i o n b y f r a u d ,2 a n d t h a t t h e y h a v e r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t th e b a la n c e o w in g . T h e d e f e n d a n ts g e n e r a lly d e n ie d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , a n d e x p r e s s l y p l e a d e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f b r e a c h e d t h e c o n tr a c t b y f a il i n g to p a y t h e a m o u n t d u e J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 .

T h e t r ia l ju d g e f o u n d t h a t th e p l a i n t if f b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t w h e n h e f a ile d to m a k e th e Ja n u a ry 1 , 1 9 9 5 p a y m e n ts , th a t th e b re a c h w a s m a te ria l, a n d w a s a n a b s o lu te d e f e n s e to t h e c o m p la in t. T h e p la in tiff a p p e a ls , a n d p re s e n ts fo r r e v ie w th e s o le is s u e o f w h e t h e r th e t r i a l c o u rt e rr e d in fin d in g th a t h e h a d m a te ria lly b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e r e b y r e l ie v i n g t h e a p p e l le e s f r o m f u r t h e r p e r fo r m a n c e .

Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is de novo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of

The judgment of the General Sessions Court was likely entitled to a greater significance than it was accorded. It was not appealed.

This allegation was apparently abandoned. the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d); Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1996).

T h e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s th a t w h i l e th e o ra l a m e n d m e n t, a s f o u n d b y th e tr i a l c o u rt , r e q u ir e d th e p a y m e n t o f $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 p r i n c ip a l a n d $ 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 m o n t h l y in s ta llm e n t o n J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 , th e re w a s n o t e s tim o n y , e x c e p t h is o w n , a s to th e le g a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is fa ilu r e . H e a rg u e s th a t in s u c h in s ta n c e s , th e la w p ro v id e s th a t h e h a s a re a s o n a b le tim e w ith in w h ic h to c u re th e d e fa u lt. S in c e th e d e fe n d a n t s d i s p o s s e s s e d h im o n J a n u a r y 2 , 1 9 9 5 , h e a r g u e s t h a t h e w a s n o t g i v e n a re a s o n a b le tim e .

O n th e fa c e o f it, th is a rg u m e n t is o b v io u s ly m e rito rio u s . B u t th e e x te n d e d f a c t s r e v e a l t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d e m a n d e d p a y m e n t o n J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 . W h e n th e p l a i n t if f ’ s t h e n m a n a g e r , D i o n e T h o m p s o n ,3 w a s u n a b le to c o m p l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t D o n n i e Y o u n g w e n t t o t h e p la c e o f b u s i n e s s t o m a k e f u r t h e r i n q u i r y a n d f o u n d i t a b a n d o n e d , w h i c h g e n e ra te d th e a c ti o n in t h e G e n e r a l S e s s i o n s C o u r t . T h e p l a i n t if f w a s a w a rd e d p o s s e s s io n o n J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1 9 9 5 , w ith n o te n d e r o f p a y m e n t fo rth c o m in g .

T h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t th e p l a i n t if f : ( 1 ) f a i le d t o a p p l y f o r a C h a r t e r o f I n c o r p o r a t i o n , a lt h o u g h p u b li c ly r e p r e s e n ti n g h i s b u s i n e s s t o b e in c o rp o r a te d ; (2 ) fa ile d to a p p ly fo r a d is m a n tlin g lic e n s e fr o m th e D e p a rtm e n t o f S a fe ty o f T e n n e s se e ; ( 3 ) d i m i n i s h e d th e in v e n to r y , a n d d i d n o t r e p le n is h i t d u r i n g h is f o u r m o n th s ’ te n u re ; (4 ) f a ile d to re m it s a le s ta x e s to th e S ta te .

W e n o t e th a t w h i l e th e p la in t i f f p a id $ 6 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s , h i s s a l e s d u rin g th e fo u r m o n th s h e o p e r a te d th e b u s in e s s b y a g e n ts e x c e e d e d th a t a m o u n t.

Tom Gargone had been dismissed. The plaintiff was in Hawaii.

F r o m a l l o f w h i c h w e a r e p e r s u a d e d th a t f u r t h e r e lu c id a ti o n w o u ld n o t b e p r o d u c ti v e , a n d t h a t t h i s i s a p r o p e r c a s e f o r a ff i r m a n c e p u rs u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 , R u l e s o f th e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls .4 T h e j u d g m e n t is a ff ir m e d a t th e c o s t o f th e a p p e l la n t .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W illia m H . In m a n , S e n io r J u d g e C O N C U R :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H e rs c h e l P . F r a n k s, J u d g e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C h a rle s D . S u s a n o , J r ., J u d g e

Affirm ance W ithout O pinion - M emor andum Opinio n. (b) The Court, w ith the con currenc e of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORA NDUM OPINION ,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on fo r any reas on in a su bseque nt unrelate d case. [A s amen ded by order filed April 22 , 1992.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.