OPINION

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, Judge.

Sarah Hurst ("Hurst") sued Colman S. Hochman ("Hochman") and Hochman Family Partners, L.P. ("the Partnership") alleging that Hochman had committed a battery upon her, and seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree that, inter alia, awarded Hurst damages of $2,500 against Hochman for battery; denied Hurst's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst's claims against the Partnership. Hurst appeals raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in denying her claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. We affirm.

Background

Hurst rented an apartment from Hochman1 in December of 2009. In January of 2011, Hurst sued Hochman and the Partnership. The case was tried in August of 2011.

Hurst testified that she, her boyfriend, and her daughter moved into the apartment she rented from Hochman in January of 2010. She testified that when she rented the apartment: "[Hochman] told me that whenever I was to pay rent or anything, I would meet him or he would come to my place to get it. And he told me that whenever I called, to call him specifically."

Hurst testified that in February of 2010:

When asked about her reaction when Hochman touched her the first time, Hurst stated:

Hurst testified that her then three-year old daughter was present almost every time that Hochman touched her. Hurst further testified:

She also stated that Hochman "touched my butt a couple times."

Hurst testified that Hochman's touching her made her "feel very uncomfortable" and that she didn't like it. She further stated: "I was stressed out a lot and whenever, not a lot, I wasn't stressed out like every day. Whenever I knew he was coming, it would stress, just stress me out a lot."

Hurst testified that she finally told her boyfriend about Hochman touching her and that her boyfriend confronted Hochman and told him to stop. She said that after her boyfriend talked to Hochman, Hochman would come to collect the rent but did not touch her. She stated:

Hurst testified: "we quit paying rent after the first two months after [my boyfriend] confronted him, because it got so bad in that apartment. It was unlivable conditions." Hurst testified that her apartment became infested with rats, there was a leak that "was leaking in the hallway floor," a pipe in the kitchen that was leaking, and her daughter's bedroom carpet was soaked. Hurst testified that they had to move out for a week and live in a hotel due to the rat problem. She testified that Hochman tried to sue her twice, but that the suits were dismissed. When asked further about these suits Hurst could not remember if the first suit she spoke about was dismissed or continued, but she stated that the second time it was dismissed.

Hurst testified that:

Hurst stated on the rental application for the apartment that she had a cleaning service and that she made approximately $13,000 per year. At trial Hurst admitted: "None of that was true. I did own a cleaning service. I just wasn't using it." She stated that she had a business license for a cleaning service, but that she never used it and "never did anything with it."

Hurst testified that she owns Personal Occasions, an entertainment service. She testified that she does not promote prostitution in her business. She later admitted, however, that she has been convicted of prostitution. Hurst testified that she was arrested for prostitution approximately one month before filing suit and stated that the case was dismissed. She admitted later that she has to go back to court in approximately three months on that charge. She stated that they gave her "like six months probation to be dismissed. It's basically dismissed."

At trial Hurst was shown an ad for Personal Encounters, and she stated that it was not her ad. When asked, she testified that she never has used the name Christian Jones. Hurst then was shown an internet advertisement containing her photograph and the name Christian Jones2. Hurst stated: "This is something my sister Charlotte did, she had brought it up for me, but I had no idea she had called me Christian Jones." Hurst again was asked if she was Christian Jones, and she stated: "I guess you would say that." She later was asked why she used a different name in the ad, and she stated: "Because I don't want people to know my real name."

When asked if Rita Brown ever worked for her cleaning service Hurst testified that she did not and that Ms. Brown worked somewhere else. When questioned further, Hurst admitted that she had testified during her deposition that Ms. Brown had worked for her cleaning service. Hurst testified at trial that Ms. Brown did one or two cleaning jobs for the cleaning service. When questioned further, Hurst admitted that Ms. Brown actually worked for Hurst's entertainment service.

Hurst testified that she had another employee who was named Nicole, but Hurst did not know Nicole's last name. When asked how she got in touch with Nicole, Hurst stated: "I had her number because she was a friend of mine that I had known for a long time. . . . I had known her since I was 20. I'm like 33 now, so like 13 years." When she was asked about knowing Nicole for 13 years and not knowing her last name, Hurst stated: "I'm trying to think Nicky Smith or something. It's Coleman, I think, and it's Nicky Coleman and Jeff Coleman."

Hurst testified that Nicole did one cleaning job for her. When asked whose property Nicole cleaned, she stated:

Hurst was asked who this customer was and she stated: "I guess his name — God. Lynn, I'm sorry, Lynn Huts. I'm nervous. That's why I'm forgetting stuff." When asked about advertising in the newspaper during the time she claimed that she was not running her business Hurst stated: "December and May? I might have been. I mean, I'm not sure. I could have been lying to you about that."

Hurst's sister, Margaret Ann Chadwick, testified she was visiting Hurst on one occasion when Hochman was present and that she witnessed Hochman put his hand in Hurst's shirt and heard her sister tell Hochman to "[s]top it." Ms. Chadwick testified that a few minutes later Hochman approached her and reached for her tank top. She stated that she pulled away from him and that "it pulled my tank top back." Ms. Chadwick stated that Hochman then left the apartment. When questioned about this incident, Hochman denied that Hurst told him "no" on that occasion and vehemently denied touching Ms. Chadwick or tugging on Ms. Chadwick's top.

Rita Kay Brown testified that she has worked for Hurst in the entertainment business but not with the cleaning service. Ms. Brown testified that she had visited Hurst at her apartment and had witnessed Hochman touching Hurst's butt and Hurst trying to remove Hochman's hand and saying "[s]top." Ms. Brown testified about another occasion when she was visiting Hurst when she witnessed Hochman put his hand over a door sill to block Hurst from leaving the room. Ms. Brown testified that Hurst "hollered" and Ms. Brown "came back to the hallway" and Hochman moved.

Hochman testified at trial and admitted that he had been sued for sexual harassment in Georgia by a tenant whom he stated had lived in one of his apartments for three months, not paid any rent, and caused about $3,000 worth of damages. He admitted that he lost this case at trial and that it is on appeal.

Hochman testified that when he met Hurst:

He further testified:

Hochman admitted that he touched Hurst: "Several times, all with encouragement," and further stated "she kept talking become [sic] how I ought to use her services and did I have any friends that might be interested. I said I would consider it."

Hochman testified that he "was very careful not to do any touching while a third party was present." He testified that he did not go to Hurst's apartment "other than for rent or any other purpose unless [he] got a call from her." Hochman admitted when asked that he vaguely recalled Hurst's boyfriend calling him and telling him not to call Hurst.

With regard to touching Hurst in front of her daughter Hochman stated:

A transcript of a recorded telephone conversation between Hurst and Hochman, which occurred after Hurst had filed suit, was admitted as an exhibit at trial. At trial, Hochman was asked about this conversation, and he admitted that during the conversation, which was recorded without his knowledge, Hurst talked about Hochman putting receipts between her cleavage, grabbing her butt, and trying to pull her shirt up and that his response to those allegations was "yes, yeah." He testified that his understanding of the conversation was "[t]hat it's all right to touch her but not in front of her 3-year-old daughter." With regard to Hurst's allegations about problems with her apartment, Hochman claimed that the apartment was "strewn with food, creating her own rat problem." He denied telling his employees not to repair problems in Hurst's apartment.

Hochman testified that he and his wife are general partners in the Partnership. He was asked if anyone had interviewed his wife before she was selected as a general partner, and he stated that he "did that 50 years ago," and that his wife similarly interviewed him "50 years ago." When asked Hochman testified that there probably is a personnel file for every employee of the Partnership except him and his wife.

Hallie Hochman McFadden is Hochman's daughter and an attorney. Ms. McFadden testified that she is a partner in the Partnership but that she did not know if she was a general partner or a limited partner. Ms. McFadden testified that Hochman has not had a performance review of his services as a general partner and that she is not aware of a personnel file pertaining to Hochman. Ms. McFadden never did a background investigation on Hochman. Ms. McFadden did state that the Partnership has an employee manual. She testified that the employee manual addresses sexual harassment, but that she was not aware of any training regarding that subject.

Ms. McFadden was asked to summarize every action that the Partnership took to determine whether Hochman was doing a good job, and she stated: "[r]eview some financial records at the end of the year. Looking at the occupancy records of the properties. I think that's probably pretty close to it." She was asked if there were any discussions about whether the right employees were being hired or whether employees were being paid the right pay and she answered: "No" to these questions. Ms. McFadden was asked if there ever had "been any action by the partnership to review any personnel decision, either hiring or firing, regarding the general partner," and she stated: "We've never seen a need to, so no."

James Edwards is employed by Hochman to do maintenance. Mr. Edwards has worked for Hochman for approximately seven years. Mr. Edwards testified that he did repairs in Hurst's apartment including putting in a kitchen faucet, repairing a toilet, and looking for mice. With regard to the mice, Mr. Edwards stated: "That's the first I run across anything like that. There was a little place in the bathroom sink that had a small hole where the pipe come in at, and we sealed that off. And that was the extent of that, the last I heard about it." Mr. Edwards was asked if Hochman ever told him not to make repairs in Hurst's apartment and he said "Oh, no, huh-uh." He also was asked if Hochman told him to slow down or delay in making repairs in Hurst's apartment and he stated: "No. That would create a bigger problem if we done something like that."

After trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree on October 14, 2011 that, inter alia, awarded Hurst a judgment against Hochman of $2,500 for battery; denied Hurst's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst's claims against the Partnership. The Final Decree incorporated by reference the Trial Court's memorandum opinion finding and holding, inter alia:

Hurst appeals to this Court.

Discussion

Although not stated exactly as such, Hurst raises two issues on appeal: 1) whether the Trial Court erred in finding and holding that she failed to prove a violation of the Fair Housing Act; and, 2) whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing her claims against the Partnership.

Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

We first address whether the Trial Court erred in finding and holding that Hurst failed to prove a violation of the Fair Housing Act. With regard to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.:

United States of America v. Hurt, 676 F.3d 649, 654 (8th Cir. 2012).

Hurst argues in her brief on appeal that "[t]he trial court concluded that the Federal Housing Act does not cover sexual harassment." We disagree that this was the Trial Court's holding. The Trial Court found and held that Hurst had not carried her burden of proof with regard to her Fair Housing Act claim.

Hurst's brief cites to several cases involving Fair Housing Act claims and attempts to analogize the facts of these cases to the facts of her case. A careful and thorough review of the record on appeal, however, reveals that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's findings with regard to this issue.3 The Trial Court specifically found that Hurst was charged and paid normal rent. The Trial Court found that Hurst's claims about the rat problem and Hochman's alleged refusal to fix problems were refuted by other evidence, particularly the testimony of Mr. Edwards. The Trial Court also found that Hurst was not deprived of any services available to other tenants. The evidence does not preponderate against these findings. Given the record now before us, we find no error in the Trial Court's holding that Hurst failed to carry her burden of proof with regard to her Fair Housing Act claim.

We turn now to Hurst's issue regarding whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. As this Court explained in Hawkins v. Hart:

Hawkins v. Hart, 86 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Our Supreme Court recently instructed in Hodge v. Craig:

Hodge v. Craig, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. M2009-00930-SC-R11-CV, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 720 at **19-20 (Tenn. Oct. 1, 2012). In Adams v. Gardino this Court recently stated:

Adams v. Gardino, W2011-00773-COA-R3-CV, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 644, at **4-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2012)4.

With regard to this issue, Hurst's appellate brief provides Hurst's assertion that: "The record is insufficient to determine whether the trial judge had a basis for dismissing the claims against the Partnership. He made no findings so this Court could determine whether or not his conclusion was correct." Hurst apparently believes that she produced sufficient evidence to support her claims against the Partnership. Hurst's brief, however, provides no citations either to the law detailing the legal theories upon which she bases her claims against the Partnership or to the record showing what evidence was presented at trial that Hurst believes supports her theories of liability against the Partnership. It is not the role of this Court to search the record and research the law in order to construct an argument for Hurst. This issue has been waived.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the appellant, Sarah Hurst, and her surety.