A legal dispute arose involving D. D. Roberts and his construction company against Tommy Yarbrough, a subcontractor, regarding work on a Fairfield Inn construction project in Clarksville. Yarbrough was contracted to hang and finish drywall for $51,370, with Roberts supplying the materials. Issues arose due to weather delays and complications with the work, leading to disputes over payment for completed work and additional costs incurred. Despite Roberts’ promise to pay Yarbrough a balance of $11,000 plus $4,000 for extras if the job was completed by March 22, Yarbrough left the project, prompting Roberts to hire another contractor.
Subsequent lawsuits resulted in a Chancery Court ruling on September 2, 1997, which awarded Yarbrough $30,813.62 for his work and $8,514.62 for materials purchased from Thomas Lumber Company. The court also granted Thomas Lumber a lien of $13,230.55 on the property and a judgment against Yarbrough for $13,684.80 for open accounts. Roberts’ claims against Yarbrough for breach of contract were dismissed. On appeal, the general contractor and his surety challenged the validity of the claims, citing issues with contractor licensing and compliance with notice statutes, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Roberts contends that Yarbrough and Thomas Lumber Company lacked the necessary contractor licenses, limiting their recovery to documented expenses proven by clear and convincing evidence, as per Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(b). This issue was not introduced in the initial pleadings, and the chancellor denied Roberts’ attempt to amend them before trial. The chancellor correctly ruled that Thomas Lumber Company, being a material supplier, does not fall under the statutory definition of 'contractor.' Regarding Yarbrough, the chancellor ruled that the licensing requirement does not apply to subcontractors. The court noted that the Supreme Court and lower courts have held that the prohibition against unlicensed contractors accessing the courts does not apply to disputes between contractors, emphasizing that licensing is intended to protect the public, not professionals dealing among themselves. Thus, Yarbrough’s lack of a contractor’s license does not bar his claim against Roberts.
On the issue of compliance with the notice of non-payment statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-145), Roberts raised this defense at trial, which the chancellor rejected. Although non-compliance can defeat lien rights, it does not negate Yarbrough’s contract claim against Roberts, who, as the general contractor, cannot assert this defense. Thomas Lumber Company’s judgment includes a lien, but the chancellor acted within her discretion in disallowing the late defense.
The chancellor determined that Yarbrough was entitled to $43,485.00 for extra work, authorized by Roberts' representative, and that Thomas Lumber Company provided materials worth $13,230.55, included in the extra work total. The appellants dispute Yarbrough's entitlement to extra payments and challenge the chancellor's credibility assessments. However, appellate courts typically defer to the trial judge's credibility findings unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.
The court found no error in the chancellor's credibility determination between witnesses and concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the chancellor's findings supporting Yarbrough's claims. Roberts contested the admission of a tape recording of a conversation regarding additional work and payments, claiming it was inaudible, self-serving, contained hearsay, and violated the parol evidence rule. However, Roberts failed to specify the objectionable parts or demonstrate how the admission prejudiced them, leading the court to uphold the chancellor's discretion in allowing the tape. Furthermore, Roberts challenged the exclusion of another tape, but without it being in the record or an offer of proof, the court could not assess any prejudicial impact.
Regarding pre-judgment interest awarded to Yarbrough, the court noted that such awards are discretionary under Tennessee law, particularly in cases with unliquidated claims. The chancellor's decision to allow interest from May 31, 1996, was justified, given that Roberts had sought Yarbrough's completion of work and acknowledged a debt, despite some dispute over the amount. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for any necessary further proceedings, assigning appeal costs to the appellant.
