Wesley Finch v. O.B. Hofstetter/Anderson Trust
M2016-00562-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- The River Road Property in Nashville was owned as tenants in common by multiple former owners. A Keller Williams “Lot/Land Purchase and Sale Agreement” dated June 4, 2014 (the "June 4 document") signed by Finch but not by all co-owners is the disputed instrument.
- Finch claims the June 4 document created an enforceable contract and seeks specific performance, damages, and other tort remedies after the property was sold to third-party current owners.
- The realtor, Josh Anderson, says the June 4 document was sent to Finch in error and that not all owners approved the sale; Finch disputes this.
- Finch tendered a $50,000 earnest-money check which was returned uncashed; no deed was delivered and no purchase funds were paid. Finch also recorded a lis pendens minutes after filing suit.
- After discovery, parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court dismissed all of Finch’s claims for failure to show an enforceable contract and for lack of evidence of damages, except briefly retaining misrepresentation and TCPA claims against the realtors; those were later dismissed for insufficient proof of damages. The trial court denied fee awards under the TCPA; Finch appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 4 document is a valid, enforceable contract / entitles Finch to specific performance | Finch: June 4 document is a binding purchase agreement; at oral argument limited remedy to interests of signatory owners | Defendants: Document not signed by all co-owners; no mutuality of remedy; any transmission was a mistake | Court: Document not enforceable to convey entire tract; no specific performance — mutuality of remedy lacking; partial specific performance waived and legally unsupported |
| Whether Finch proved damages necessary for contract/tort recovery | Finch: Loss of the property and wasted time/fees constitute damages; promised to supplement with numbers | Defendants: Finch produced no substantiated evidence or quantification of damages | Court: Finch failed to present specific, admissible evidence of ascertainable/actual damages; summary judgment proper |
| Whether intentional misrepresentation and TCPA claims against realtor defendants survive | Finch: Realtors misrepresented existence of an enforceable contract causing loss; statutory TCPA claim alleged | Realtors: No ascertainable loss shown; conduct not actionable absent damages | Court: Dismissed misrepresentation and TCPA claims for failure to prove damages; denial of Finch’s partial summary judgment likewise affirmed |
| Whether defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees (TCPA) or appellate sanctions (frivolous appeal) | Finch: appeal challenges summary judgment and factual rulings | Defendants: Seek fees under Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-109(e)(2) and damages under §27-1-122 for frivolous appeal | Court: Fee award under TCPA is discretionary; defendants failed to show trial court abused discretion in denying fees; appellate damages declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Maggart v. Almany Realtors, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 700 (Tenn. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hughes v. New Life Dev. Corp., 387 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 2012) (trial court must ensure Rule 56 standards satisfied)
- Carr v. Ott, 277 S.W.2d 419 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1954) (mutuality of remedy bars specific performance of partial interests when contract is for whole tract)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (nonmoving party must point to specific facts enabling a trier of fact to find for it at summary judgment)
- Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. 2012) (TCPA recovery requires proof that loss is ascertainable and supported for assessment of damages)
- Tucker v. Sierra Builders, 180 S.W.3d 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (TCPA requires proof of an ascertainable loss)