Hosale v. Warren ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • JAMES HOSALE, d/b/a CLIFFS              )
    PLUMBING,
    Plaintiff,
    )
    ) Appeal No.       FILED
    ) 01A01-9810-CV-00523
    )
    July 29, 1999
    v.                                      )
    ) Davidson Circuit
    Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    ROBERT (BOB) WARREN,                    )
    Appellate Court Clerk
    )
    Defendant.                       )
    COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
    APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
    AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
    THE HONORABLE HAMILTON V. GAYDEN, JR., JUDGE
    DAN R. ALEXANDER
    2016 8th Avenue South
    Nashville, Tennessee 37204
    Attorney for Appellee
    THOMAS D. FROST
    815 South Church Street
    Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130
    Attorney for Appellant
    AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
    HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, JUDGE
    CONCUR:
    GODDARD, P.J.
    SUSANO, J.
    OPINION
    The defendant appeals from a judgment entered in Circuit Court in favor of
    the plaintiff in the amount of $6,148.00.
    Plaintiff is a plumber, and defendant is an engineer who had hired or referred
    plaintiff several times. William Tarpley operated a construction business known as W.T.
    Construction, and in February of 1995 Tarpley and defendant formed a limited liability
    company known as “W & T Construction”. Although they dispute the details of the
    discussion, plaintiff and defendant had a conversation, after which plaintiff contacted Tarpley
    and began work on a project.
    Plaintiff billed defendant for the project, but was told to contact Tarpley.
    Plaintiff received a partial payment drawn on the account of W & T Construction. Tarpley
    filed for bankruptcy, and plaintiff filed suit against defendant for the unrecovered amount.
    In Circuit Court, defendant argued there was no contract between the parties,
    but even if there was, he was not liable because “W & T” was an L.L.C. Plaintiff argued that
    he was never told of any L.L.C. He also contended that defendant represented the entity as a
    joint venture and told him that defendant and Tarpley were involved in a partnership.
    Judgment was entered by the Circuit Judge in favor of plaintiff.
    The appellant-defendant states as issues in his brief:
    1. What is the proper standard of review in this matter?
    2. Did the Plaintiff have a contract with the Defendant?
    3. Is the Defendant, as a member of a limited liability company, personally
    liable to the Defendant [sic]?
    The statement of the issues does not comply with T.R.A.P. 27(a)(4). Questions presented
    “must not be so general as to be meaningless.” State v. Dykes, 
    803 S.W.2d 250
    , 255
    (Tenn.Cr.App. 1990) (citation omitted). In Tortorich v. Erickson, 
    675 S.W.2d 190
    , 191
    (Tenn. App. 1984), the appellant posed only “general questions.” The court noted that “[t]o
    answer such a query requires a degree of clairvoyance with which this Court is not
    possessed.” 
    Id.
    Despite the inadequacy of the Statement of the Issues, we have reviewed the
    2
    record and find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Judge’s findings.
    T.R.A.P. Rule 13(d). It is obvious from the record that much of the Trial Court’s decision
    depended upon its assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. “In a case tried without a jury,
    the question of credibility of the witness is exclusively for the trial judge trying the case and
    cannot be reviewed by the appellate courts.” Harwell v. Harwell, 
    612 S.W.2d 182
    , 184
    (Tenn. App. 1980) (citation omitted).
    We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand at appellant’s cost.
    ________________________
    Herschel P. Franks, J.
    CONCUR:
    ___________________________
    Houston M. Godd ard, P.J.
    ___________________________
    Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01A01-9810-CV-00523

Filed Date: 7/29/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014