Jeffrey Keith Phillips and Jennifer Phillips v. Eugene Russell

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
March 4, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
J EFFREY KEI TH PHI LLI PS a nd ) WASHI NGTON CI RCUI T
J ENNI FER PHI LLI PS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9509- CV- 00298
)
)
Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s )
)
)
)
)
)
vs . ) HON. G. RI CHARD J OHNSON
) J UDGE BY I NTERCHANGE
)
)
)
)
)
EUGENE RUSSELL, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED
)
De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

TI M OTHY S. BELI SLE, Ande r s on, Fuga t e , Gi ve ns , Count s , & Be l i s l e ,
J o h n s o n Ci t y, f or Appe l l a nt .

ROBERT J . J ESSEE, J ohns on Ci t y, f or Appe l l e e s .

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J .
c ur
 The pa r t i e s t o t hi s a p pe a l e nt e r e d i nt o a c ont r a c t whe r e by t h e

a pp e l l a nt wa s t o c ons t r uc t a home f or t he a ppe l l e e s . Pr obl e ms

d e v e l o p e d be t we e n t he pa r t i e s whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a n a c t i on by t h e

p l a i nt i f f s - a ppe l l e e s to r e c ove r da ma ge s f r om t he de f e nda n t -

a pp e l l a nt f or de f e c t i ve wor kma ns hi p i n t he c ons t r uc t i on a n d t o

r e mo v e a c l oud f r om t he i r t i t l e r e s ul t i ng f r om a l i e n f i l e d by t he

d e f e n d a nt . The de f e nda nt f i l ed a c o u n t e r c l a i m a ga i ns t t he

p l a i nt i f f s a n d a c r os s - c l a i m a ga i ns t Shi r l e y G. Hughe s . Shi r l e y

Hu g h e s wa s t r us t e e unde r a de e d of t r us t e xe c ut e d by t he pl a i nt i f f s

t o s e c ur e pa yme nt o f a pr omi s s or y not e i n t he a mount of $80, 000. 0 0 .
1
p a y a b l e t o El i z a be t ht on Sa vi ngs a nd Loa n As s oc i a t i on.

I n hi s c ount e r c l a i m, t he de f e nda nt s ought to r e c ove r t he

unpa i d ba l a nc e of t he c ont r a c t pr i c e pl us a dd i t i ona l s ums he

c l a i ms t o h a v e e xpe nde d i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he hous e . He

a l l e g e s t ha t he i s e nt i t l e d t o r e c ove r f r om t he pl a i nt i f f s on t he

t h e o r y of qua nt um me r ui t . No r e c ove r y i s s ought a ga i ns t t he c r os s -

d e f e n d a nt .

Af t e r a be nc h t r i a l t he c our t r e s ol ve d t he i s s ue s i n f a vor o f

t he p l a i nt i f f s a nd a wa r de d j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he d e f e nda nt i n t h e

a mo u n t of $3, 412. 69. Fr om t hi s j udgme nt t he de f e nda nt ha s a ppe a l e d

a n d p r e s e nt s t he f ol l owi ng i s s ue s f or our c ons i de r a t i on:

1
For simplicity, the parties will be referred to in the capacity in which they
appeared in the trial court.

2
 1. W t he r t he c onduc t of t he pl a i nt i f f s , i n p e r -
he
mi t t i ng t he de f e nda nt t o c ont i nue wo r k on pl a i n-
t i f f s ’ hous e de s pi t e pe r c e i ve d de vi a t i ons f r om t he
c ont r a c t a n d i n not a l l owi ng t he de f e nda nt s uf f i -
c i e nt oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t t he de f e c t s a f t e r
not i c e t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ i nt e nde d t o wi t hhol d
pa yme nt u nt i l t he de f e c t s we r e c or r e c t e d, s houl d
pr e c l ude t he m f r om pr e va i l i ng a ga i ns t t he de f e n-
da nt .

2. W t he r t he t r i a l c our t e r r e d i n a wa r di ng j udgme nt
he
t o p l a i nt i f f s wh e r e t he e vi de nc e f a i l e d t o e s t a b-
l i s h p l a i nt i f f ’ s ’ e nt i t l e me nt t o j udgme nt .

3. W t he r de f e nda nt
he i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a ga i ns t
t he p l a i nt i f f s .

W wi l l f i r s t c ons i de r t he t hi r d i s s ue .
e I t i s undi s put e d t ha t

t he d e f e nda nt - c ount e r - pl a i nt i f f wa s not a l i c e ns e d c ont r a c t o r .
2
T. C. A. § 62- 6- 103 pr ovi de s i n pe r t i ne nt pa r t a s f ol l ows :

62- 6- 103. Li c e ns e r e qui r e m nt - Re c ove r y of e xpe ns e s
e
by unl i c e ns e d c ont r ac t or . ( a ) ( 1) Any pe r s on , f i r m or
c o r por a t i on e nga ge d i n c ont r a c t i ng i n t hi s s t a t e s ha l l be
r e qui r e d t o s ubmi t e vi de nc e t ha t s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or
c o r po r a t i on i s qua l i f i e d t o e nga ge i n c ont r a c t i ng, a nd
s ha l l be l i c e ns e d a s he r e i na f t e r pr ovi de d. I t i s unl a wf ul
f or a ny pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on t o e nga ge i n or of f e r
t o e nga ge i n c ont r a c t i n g i n t he s t a t e , u nl e s s s uc h
p e r s on, f i r m or c or po r a t i on ha s be e n dul y l i c e ns e d unde r
t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s c ha pt e r , a s he r e i na f t e r pr ovi de d.
An y pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on e nga ge d i n c ont r a c t i ng,
i n c l udi ng s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on t ha t e nga ge s
i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of r e s i de nc e s or dwe l l i ngs c on-
s t r uc t e d on pr i va t e pr ope r t y f or t he pur pos e of r e s a l e ,
l e a s e , r e nt or a ny ot he r s i mi l a r pur pos e , s ha l l be
r e qui r e d t o s ubmi t e vi de nc e t ha t s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or
c o r por a t i on i s qua l i f i e d t o e nga ge i n c ont r a c t i ng a nd/ or
b u i l di ng, a nd s ha l l be l i c e ns e d. I t i s unl a wf ul f or a ny

2
T.C.A. § 62-6-103 was amended in 1994. The text set out here is the text as
it existed before the 1994 amendment.

3
 p e r s on, f i r m, or c or por a t i on t o e nga ge i n, or of f e r t o
e n ga ge i n, c ont r a c t i ng or bui l di ng a s he r e i na bove
d e s c r i be d, unl e s s s uc h pe r s on, f i r m or c or por a t i on ha s
b e e n dul y l i c e ns e d unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s c ha pt e r .

* * * *

( c ) Any unl i c e ns e d c ont r a c t or c ove r e d by t he
p r ovi s i ons of t hi s c ha pt e r s ha l l be pe r mi t t e d i n a c our t
o f e qui t y t o r e c ove r a c t ua l doc ume nt e d e xpe ns e s onl y upon
a s howi ng of c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng pr oof .

To a voi d t he c ons e que nc e s of t hi s s t a t ut e , t he de f e nda n t

t h e or i z e s t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s ar e e s t oppe d f r om a s s e r t i ng t he

u n l i c e n s e d s t a t us of t he de f e nda nt . De f e nda nt i ns i s t s t ha t t he

pl a i nt i f f s ' a c t i ons i n a l l owi ng hi m t o go f or wa r d knowi ng t ha t h e

wa s u n l i c e ns e d c r e a t e d a n e s t oppe l . No a ut hor i t y i s c i t e d t o u s

a nd we h a ve f ound none whe r e by e s t oppe l c a n be s uc c e s s f ul l y i nvok e d

t o d e f e a t t he pur pos e s of t he a bove s t a t ut e . Eve r yone i s pr e s u me d

t o k n o w t he l a w. Da vi s v. M t r opol i t a n Gove r nme nt of Na s hvi l l e ,
e

6 2 0 S. W 2d 532 ( Te nn.
. App . 1981) . The r e f or e , t he de f e nda nt is

c ha r g e a bl e wi t h t he knowl e dge t ha t he c oul d r e c ove r no mor e t h a n

t he s t a t ut e a l l ows , i . e . , a c t ua l doc ume nt e d e xpe ns e s a nd t he n, a nd

o n l y t h e n, upon a s howi ng, by c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng pr oof , t ha t h e

i n c u r r e d t he e xpe ns e s . To hol d o t he r wi s e woul d be t o c r e a t e a

j ud i c i a l e xc e pt i on t o t he s t a t ut e whi c h we a r e unwi l l i ng t o do. We

h o l d t h a t e s t oppe l doe s not a ppl y unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s of t h i s

case.

4
 As doc ume nt e d pr oof , t he de f e nda nt of f e r e d i nt o e vi de n c e

c he c ks i n t he t ot a l a mount of $88, 774. 32, whi c h he c l a i ms r e-

p r e s e nt e d moni e s e xpe nde d on t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ hous e . I n Br a ndon v .

W i g h t , 838 S. W 2d 532 ( Te nn. App. 1992) , i t wa s e s t a bl i s he d t h a t
r .

c a nc e l e d c he c ks a nd i nvoi c e s c oul d c ons t i t ut e " a de qua t e doc ume nt e d

e x p e n s e s . . . u pon a s howi ng of c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . " Th e

c o u r t i n Br a ndon, c i t i ng W l c he r v.
i Br a dl e y, 708 S. W 2d 407 ( Te n n .
.

Ap p . 1 9 85) , s t a t e d: " ' Cl e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e ' a s r e qui r e d

b y T. C. A. § 62- 6- 103( c ) i s ' t ha t me a s ur e or de gr e e of pr oof whi c h

wi l l p r oduc e i n t he mi nd of t he t r i e r of f a c t a f i r m be l i e f or

c o n v i c t i on a s t o t he t r ut h of t he a l l e ga t i ons t o be e s t a bl i s he d . ' "

In t hi s cas e, we ar e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he e vi de n c e

p r e s e nt e d by t he de f e nda nt doe s not me e t t he t e s t . On ma ny of t h e

c he c ks t he " me m " o r " f or " bl a nk ha s ,
o e ve n t o a n unt r a i ne d e y e ,

b e e n f i l l e d by a di f f e r e nt ha n d a nd a di f f e r e nt c ol or e d i nk t h u s

c a s t i n g s us pi c i on upon t he i r a ut he nt i c i t y. Fur t he r t he r e we r e n o

ma t c hi n g i nvoi c e s c or r e l a t i ng t o t he c he c ks . The c ount e r - pl a i nt i f f

h a s f a i l e d t o me e t hi s bur d e n of pr oof . W f i nd t ha t t he de f e nd a n t
e

i s n o t e nt i t l e d t o a mone t a r y j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he pl a i nt i f f s .

Ha vi ng de c i de d t he i s s ue whi c h r e qui r e s t he a ppl i c a t i on of t h e

"cl ear a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e " r ul e , we wi l l c ons i de r t he

r e ma i n i ng i s s ue s t oge t he r . I n de c i di ng t he s e i s s ue s , we a r e bo u n d

5
b y t h e p r ovi s i ons of Rul e 1 3( d) , T. R. A. P. i . e . , " [ u ] nl e s s ot he r wi s e

r e q u i r e d by s t a t ut e , r e vi e w of f i ndi ngs of f a c t by t he t r i a l c o u r t

i n c i vi l a c t i ons s ha l l be de novo upon t he r e c or d of t he t r i a l

c our t , a c c ompa ni e d by a pr e s umpt i on of t he c or r e c t ne s s of t he

f i ndi ng, unl e s s t h e pr e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e i s ot he r wi s e . "

I n a d e n ovo r e vi e w, t he pa r t i e s a r e e nt i t l e d t o a r e e xa mi na t i o n o f

t h e wh o l e ma t t e r of l a w a nd f a c t a nd t hi s c our t s houl d r e nde r t h e

j u d g me n t wa r r a nt e d by t he l a w a nd e vi de nc e . Thor nbur g v. Cha s e ,

6 0 6 S. W 2d 672 ( Te nn. App. 1980) ;
. Ame r i c a n Bui l di ngs Co. v. W t e ,
hi

6 4 0 S. W 2d 569 ( Te nn.
. App. 1982) ; Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e

Pr o c e d u r e , Rul e 36.

The t r i a l c our t f ound t ha t t he de f e nda nt c ons t r uc t e d t he ho u s e

i n a n u nwor kma nl i ke ma nne r be l ow t he s t a nda r d of t he c ons t r uc t i o n

ar t a n d br e a c he d hi s c ont r a c t a nd wa r r a nt i e s t o t he pl a i nt i f f .

Ac c e pt i ng t he t r i a l c our t ' s f i ndi ngs a s t r ue , t hos e f i ndi ngs a l o n e

d o n o t e nt i t l e t he pl a i nt i f f s ' t o a j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he de f e nda n t .

I t i s e s t a bl i s he d l a w t ha t a pa r t y t o a c ons t r uc t i on c ont r a c t

is unde r a n obl i ga t i on t o gi ve not i c e of pe r c e i ve d de f e c t s or

d e v i a t i ons f r om t he c ont r a c t s pe c i f i c a t i ons . Se e M Cl a i n
c v.

Ki mb r o u gh Cons t . Co. , I nc . , 806 S. W 2d 194 ( Te nn. App. 1990) .
. It

i s f u r t h e r e s t a bl i s he d t ha t a pa r t y i s unde r a dut y t o pr ovi d e a

r e a s o n a bl e oppor t uni t y to c or r e c t t he de f e c t i ve wor k be f o r e

6
t e r mi na t i ng t he c ont r a c t . I d. , at 199. Se e al so Ca r t e r v.

Kr u e g e r , a n unpu b l i s h e d opi ni on ( t o be publ i s he d) of t hi s c ou r t ,

p e r mi s s i on t o a ppe a l de ni e d Fe br ua r y 5, 1996.

I n Ca r t e r , t hi s c our t de ni e d r e l i e f t o a pr ope r t y owne r wh o

f a i l e d t o gi ve not i c e a nd a n oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t de f e c t s i n t h e

c o n s t r u c t i on of a c omme r c i a l bui l di ng. Quot i ng f r om M Cl a i n,
c

s u p r a , t hi s c our t s a i d:

Re qui r i ng not i c e i s a s ound r ul e de s i gne d t o a l l ow
t he de f a ul t i ng pa r t y t o r e pa i r t he de f e c t i ve wor k, t o
r e duc e t he da ma ge s , t o a voi d a ddi t i ona l de f e c t i ve
p e r f or ma nc e , a nd t o pr omo t e t he i nf or ma l s e t t l e me nt of
d i s put e s . Pol l a r d v. Sa xe & Yol ke s De v. Co. , 1 2 Ca l . 3d
3 7 4, 525 P. 2d 88, 92, 115 Ca l . Rpt r . 648, 652 ( 1974) ;
St ur dy Conc r e t e Cor p. v. Na b Cons t r . Cor p . , 6 5 A. D. 2d
2 6 2, 4 1 1 N. Y. S. 2d 637, 644 ( 1978) . Thus , e ve n whe n t he
p a r t i e s h a ve not i nc l ude d a " t a ke ove r " c l a us e i n t he i r
c o nt r a c t , c our t s ha ve i mpos e d upon c ont r a c t or s t he dut y
t o gi ve s ubc ont r a c t or s not i c e a nd a n oppor t uni t y t o c ur e
b e f or e t e r mi na t i ng t he c ont r a c t f or f a ul t y pe r f or ma nc e .
Un i t e d St a t e s e x r e l . Cor t ol a no & Ba r one , I nc . v. M a noor
Co ns t r . Cor p . , 724 F. Supp. 88, 98 ( S. D. N. Y. 1989) ; s e e
a l s o Cyc l o Fl oo r M c h i ne Cor p. v. Na t i ona l Hous e wa r e s ,
a
I nc . , 296 F. Supp. 665, 682 ( D. Ut a h 1968) ( i mpos i ng a
n o t i c e r e qui r e me nt i n a nonc ons t r uc t i on c ont e xt ) .

M Cl a i n a t pa ge 198.
c

W not e t ha t t he t r i a l c our t di d not ma ke a ny f i ndi ngs of f a c t
e

wi t h r e ga r d t o not i c e or oppor t uni t y t o c or r e c t t he de f e c t s . Th u s

t he r e a r e no f i ndi ngs t o whi c h we c a n a ppl y t he pr e s u mpt i on o f

c or r e c t ne s s pr ovi de d i n Rul e 13( d) , T. R. A. P. Rul e 36, T. R. A. P.

7
r e q u i r e s us t o e xa mi ne t he r e c or d, ma ke f a c t ua l de t e r mi na t i on s ,

a p p l y t he l a w a nd r e nde r t he j udgme nt wa r r a nt e d by t he l a w a nd t h e

e vi d e nc e .

I n t hi s c a s e , i t ha s be e n e s t a bl i s he d by a pr e ponde r a nc e o f

t he e vi d e nc e t ha t a s e a r l y a s De c e mbe r , 1993, t he pl a i nt i f f s pu t

t he d e f e nda nt on not i c e t ha t t he ba s e me nt wa s l e a ki ng a nd t ha t t h e

b a s e me nt wa l l s we r e not be i ng c ons t r uc t e d i n a c c or da nc e wi t h t h e

s p e c i f i c a t i ons . At t ha t t i me , t he a r e a a r ound t he ba s e me nt wa l l s

ha d not be e n ba c kf i l l e d. The de f e nda nt , wi t hout c or r e c t i ng t h e

de f e c t s , ba c kf i l l e d t he a r e a a r ou n d t he ba s e me nt wa l l s t he r e by

r e n d e r i ng i t di f f i c ul t t o c or r e c t a ny wa t e r pr obl e m. The wa l l s o f

t he b a s e me nt l e a ke d a nd c ont i nue d t o l e a k up t o t he t i me of t h e

t r i al . Th e p l a i nt i f f , J e f f r e y Ke i t h Phi l l i ps , t e s t i f i e d t ha t he

t a l ke d wi t h t he de f e nda nt on Apr i l 8, 1994, a nd t ha t he wa s t o l d

t ha t t h e r e wa s not hi ng t ha t c oul d be done a bout it, it wa s t o o

l at e.

Th e pl a i nt i f f s a l s o f ur ni s he d t he de f e nda nt wi t h a l i s t of

o t h e r d e f e c t s t he y f ound i n t he hous e . The y f ur t h e r r e f u s e d t o

a u t h o r i z e a f i na l dr a w on t he c ont r a c t pr i c e of t he hous e unt i l t h e

de f e c t s we r e c ompl e t e d. W a r e of
e t he opi ni on t ha t t he y we r e

j us t i f i e d i n s o doi ng. W a r e f ur t he r of t he opi ni on a nd f i nd t h a t
e

t h e d e f e nda nt i s c ha r ge a bl e wi t h not i c e a s of De c e mbe r , 1993, a n d

8
t ha t f r o m De c e mbe r , 1993, unt i l Apr i l , 1994, wa s a mpl e t i me wi t h i n

wh i c h t o c or r e c t t he pr obl e ms .

Ra ymond Ki dd, a l i c e ns e d b u i l di ng c ont r a c t or , cal l ed as a

wi t ne s s by t he p l a i nt i f f t e s t i f i e d t ha t he wa s f a mi l i a r wi t h t he

s t a n d a r ds of t he c ons t r uc t i on i ndus t r y i n W s hi ngt on Count y i n t he
a

y e a r s 1 993 a nd 1994. He f ur t he r t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he c ons t r uc t i on o f

t h e d we l l i ng wa s not up t o s t a nda r d.

M.
r Don Ba c on, a l i c e ns e d ge ne r a l c ont r a c t or , t e s t i f i e d on

b e ha l f of t he de f e nda nt . He t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he r e we r e de f e c t s i n

t he h o u s e but t ha t t he y c ou l d be r e pa i r e d a t a mi ni ma l c os t . As t o

t h e wa t e r i n t he ba s e me nt , he c onc e de d t ha t t he hous e s houl d h a v e

d r i e d b y t he t i me of t he t r i a l . He s ugge s t e d t ha t t he gr a de of t h e

l ot s h o ul d be c ha nge d a s a fi rst e f f or t t o c or r e c t t he wa t e r

p r o b l e m a nd i f t ha t wa s i ns uf f i c i e nt , a " f r e nc h dr a i n" s houl d b e
3
i n s t a l l e d a r ound t he hous e .

I t i s i mpl i c i t i n t he t r i a l c our t ' s f i ndi ng t ha t t he c ons t r u c -

t i on f e l l be l ow t he s t a nd a r ds pr e va i l i ng i n t he a r e a , t hat t he

t r i al c our t a c c r e d i t e d t he t e s t i mony of t he pl a i nt i f f s ' e xp e r t

wi t ne s s , M.
r Ra ymond Ki dd. ... [ O] n an i s s ue whi c h hi nge s on

3
Mr. Bacon described a french drain as follows: "You dig a ditch out away
from the house and put the rock in it and the tile, straw it and put the dirt back.
You dig from one end to the other and bring the tile back to the top of the ground
for the water to drain into."

9
wi t ne s s c r e di bi l i t y, t h e t r i a l c our t wi l l n o t be r e ve r s e d unl e s s

t he r e is f ound in t he r e c or d cl ear , c onc r e t e , a nd c onvi nc i n g

e v i d e n c e ot he r t ha n t he or a l t e s t i mony of wi t ne s s e s whi c h c ont r a -

di c t t he t r i a l c our t ' s f i ndi ngs . Se e Te nne s s e e Va l l e y Ka ol i n

Co r p . v . Pe r r y , 526 S. W 2d 488 ( Te nn. App. 1974) .
. W c onc ur wi t h
e

t he f i n d i ngs of t he t r i al c our t t ha t t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he

d we l l i n g f e l l b e l ow a c c e pt a bl e s t a nda r ds .

Fu r t he r we a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he e vi de nc e s uppor t s a

f i n d i n g t ha t t he de f e nda nt wa s gi ve n a mpl e t i me a nd oppor t uni t y t o

c or r e c t t he pr obl e ms or at l eas t to a t t e mpt to c or r e c t t he

p r o b l e ms . " [ I ] n c a s e s whe r e bot h pa r t i e s ha ve not f ul l y pe r f or me d ,

it is ne c e s s a r y f or t he c our t s to de t e r mi ne whi c h pa r t y is

c ha r g e a bl e wi t h t he fi r st unc ur e d ma t e r i a l br e a c h. " M Cl a i n,
c

s u p r a , 199. W f i nd t ha t t he de f e nda nt br e a c he d t he c ont r a c t a n d
e

t ha t h i s b r e a c h wa s t he f i r s t ma t e r i a l br e a c h. Ac c or di ngl y, we

f i n d t h a t t he pl a i nt i f f s a r e e nt i t l e d t o r e c ove r da ma ge s f r om t h e

d e f e n d a nt whi c h r e s ul t e d f r om t he de f e nda nt ' s br e a c h of c ont r a c t .

W f u r t h e r f i nd t ha t
e t he da ma ge s a wa r de d by t he t r i a l c our t ar e

r e a s o n a bl e unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s of t hi s c a s e .

Al l i s s ue s a r e r e s ol ve d a ga i ns t t he a ppe l l a nt . The t r i a l

c our t is a f f i r me d in al l r e s pe c t s . Cos t s ar e t a xe d to t he

10
a pp e l l a nt a n d t h i s c a us e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or t h e

c o l l e c t i on t he r e of .

_______________________________ _
Don T. M M r a y, J .
c ur

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________
He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________
Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J .

11
 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

J EFFREY KEI TH PHI LLI PS a nd ) WASHI NGTON CI RCUI T
J ENNI FER PHI LLI PS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9509- CV- 00298
)
)
Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s )
)
)
)
)
)
vs . ) HON. G. RI CHARD J OHNSON
) J UDGE BY I NTERCHANGE
)
)
)
)
)
EUGENE RUSSELL, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED
)
De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

ORDER

Th i s a ppe a l c a me on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r o m t h e

Ci r c u i t Cour t of W s hi ngt on Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .
a

Up o n c o n s i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t h e r e

wa s n o r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

The t r i a l c our t i s a f f i r me d i n a l l r e s pe c t s . Cos t s a r e t a xe d

t o t h e a ppe l l a nt a nd t hi s c a us e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f o r

t he c o l l e c t i on t he r e of .
 PER CURI AM

13