PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE.
A farming supply store brought suit against an account holder for money due on an unpaid account. The trial court found that the store failed to prove any monies were owed. The farming store appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's decision. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
C G Seeds ("C G"), a farm supply store located in Riddleton, Tennessee, is owned by George McDonald. In the early 1990s, Sammy Taylor set up an account at C G to purchase seed corn, hybrid seed corn, and crop protector chemicals.
According to the trial transcript, the proper name for the business is C G Seeds, not C G Seeds, Inc.
At the time the products were received by Mr. Taylor, a handwritten invoice would be issued showing both the quantity of the item (whether in pounds, bushels, ounces, etc.) and price of each item purchased. The invoices were not always signed by the person receiving the goods. At the end of each month, C G generated a computer invoice totaling the purchases for the month on the account held by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor was thus billed on a monthly basis for his purchases at C G. Unfortunately, the invoices did not correspond to the computer generated monthly bill so it was not possible to match purchases with the end of the month statement.
C G brought suit on December 7, 2001 against Mr. Taylor for the unpaid balance due on his account. At the bench trial, the trial court heard testimony from Mr. McDonald and the Taylors. In addition, the trial court conducted a thorough review of C G's business records pertaining to Mr. Taylor's account, and unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile them. C G's invoices did not match the computer printouts, and no record could provide a current and accurate account balance.
Mr. McDonald testified that as of the date of trial, the outstanding principal on the account was $8,434.69, the outstanding interest was $14,540.69, and the total past due on the account was $22,975.38.
Mrs. Taylor testified that she had been the bookkeeper for Mr. Taylor for nine years and that she had contacted Mr. McDonald several times regarding invoices and receipts. Mrs. Taylor stated that "there were a lot of missing tickets, according to the [monthly] statements, and I just never could get it — anything to match." Mr. McDonald agreed somewhat, testifying that Mrs. Taylor had contacted him on more than one occasion to inform him that she was not receiving all of the invoices or receipts for what she had been billed for on the monthly statement of the account. Mr. McDonald stated that he regularly sent invoices to Mr. Taylor at his home address. Mr. McDonald also asserted that he sent additional copies of the handwritten invoices to Mrs. Taylor in response to her requests. She acknowledged that Mr. McDonald sent her most of the invoices after her telephone calls, but that she never did receive all of the handwritten invoices and some of them she did receive were unsigned.
The trial court found that C G had failed to prove that Mr. Taylor owed the store any money. In fact, the trial court was concerned that the Taylors may have been overcharged for supplies or charged for supplies not received since many of the invoices either stated different prices for the same product or did not bear a signature to verify receipt of the supplies. The trial court noted that:
However, in going through these invoices,
I find that Mr. Taylor — he and his wife both stated they couldn't get the statements to match up to the invoices, so that's exactly what I tried to do.
*****
But when I look at [Mr. Taylor's] total charges compared to what he charged in the past, it appeared to me it just didn't look right. Back in 94 he had a $41,000 account; `95 he had a $51,726 account; and then it jumps up in `96 to $83,669. Mr. Taylor never could understand it. His wife couldn't understand it. And they've paid some $79,000 on that account.
And I think due to the discrepancies in the billing that I believe it's — that Mr. Taylor is paid in full. He paid $79,000, and I'm sure that was hard to come by when the $83,000 he was charged with would pay for almost two years of his farming accounts in the past. So I'm going to — based on these exhibits, I'm going to say Mr. Taylor owes nothing, and so it would be a judgment for Mr. Taylor.
On appeal, C G argues that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings. Our review of this record is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of factual findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d); Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tenn. 2000).
This court has held that in order to prove the existence of an account,
The general principles of evidence apply to the proof of accounts. The ordinary way of proving accounts is of course to prove each item thereof, the quantity and value, unless an implied or express assent to the correctness of the account can be shown. The correctness of an account, may, like any other fact, be established by circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances must not be too remote or far-fetched, but must be such as to afford a reasonable proof of the existence of the fact attempted to be deducted therefrom.
Cumberland Grocery Co. v. York, 9 Tenn. App. 316, 317-18 (1929).
Of course, the burden of proof was on C G. In the case herein, while Mr. McDonald sufficiently established the existence of an account between C G and Mr. Taylor, he did not sufficiently prove the correctness of the amount he asserted was owed by Mr. Taylor. The evidence that Mr. McDonald submitted included only his computerized monthly billing statements and handwritten invoices, only a few of which were signed by the person receiving the goods. There was no proof submitted by either party that Mr. and Mrs. Taylor actually received all of the items that they were billed for by C G or that they or someone working for them actually charged all of the items billed to their account. The invoices, even including the unsigned ones, did not match the monthly billing. While all of the bills were entered into evidence, C G did nothing to prove that Mr. Taylor owed more than he had paid. As to the interest charged on the account, although some of the invoices indicate an intent to charge an 18% annual interest rate on invoices over 45 days past due, Mr. McDonald testified that he and Mr. Taylor agreed to reduce that amount to 12% at one point in time, and 5.04% at another time. Mr. Taylor does not remember ever agreeing to an interest rate. Mr. McDonald did not produce any type of writing which evidenced an agreement as to the interest rate to be charged on the account for any past due amounts.
Based upon our review of the record, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings. The documentary evidence produced by C G does not establish the amount claimed as owing. To the extent findings rely on credibility determinations, in a non jury case, the weight, faith and credit to be given to a witness' testimony lies in the first instance with the trial judge who has the opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. Roberts v. Roberts, 827 S.W.2d 788, 795 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991); Weaver v. Nelms, 750 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987), and we give great weight to the trial judge's findings on issues involving credibility of witnesses. Randolph v. Randolph, 937 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tenn. 1996).
Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that C G failed to prove an amount owing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are taxed to C G Seeds, Inc.