### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON April 21, 201 0 S es sio n MATTI E M. LI NDSEY, ET AL 

### . v. MARK LAMBE RT, ET AL 

### . D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T - 004874- 07 D onna F i el ds, Judge

N o. W 2009- 01586- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M ay 18, 2010

T hi s appea l ar i s es outof a l aw s ui tfi l ed aga i ns tt he att or ney s and i ns ur ance company i nvol ved i n t he sett l ement of a per s onal i nj ur y cl ai m . T he tr i al cour tdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m s of t he pl ai nt i ffs / appel l ant s , M at t i e and Edm ond L i nds ey , forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r e l i e f c o u l d b e g r a n t e d

. Th e Li nd s e y s d i d n o ta p p e a l t h e o r i g i n a l d i s mi s s a l o f t h e i rc l a i ms b u t i n stead m o v e d to s e t a side the c o u rt ’s j u d g m en t nea rl yo n e y ea r l ater. T h e tri al co u rt decli ned t o s et asi de i t s j ud gm ent and grant ed a m oti on for sanct i on s agai nstt he L i nd sey s. W e af fi r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of the Li ndsey s’ m o ti on t o s etas i de, vaca t e i t s aw ar d of s a n c tio n s , a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 A p p e a l a s o f R ig h t; J u d g m e n t o f th e C irc u it C o u r t A ffir m e d in part , V acat ed i n part , and R em anded D AV I D R. F ARMER , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W
. S

. , and J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J
. , j oi ned. M a ttie M . L in d s e y , P r o Se

. E d m o n d L . L in d s e y , P r o S e . R . C a m p b e ll H ill y e r, M e m p h is, T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llee , M a rk L a m b e rt. C . M ich a e l B e c k e r, G e rm a n to w n , T e n n e ss e e , f o r th e a p p e llee s, G a ryW ilk in so n a n d R u ss e ll R ut l edge. C h risto p h e r L . V e sc o v o a n d E d d L . P e y to n , M e m p h is T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e A p p e llee , S tate F a r m I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y.The parties’ papers sug g est that the claim w as dismissed and re- filed o n at least o ne o ccasion

. 1 T h e Li n d s e ys f

i r s tf i l e d amot i o nt o s e ta s i d e a l mo s to n e ye ar f o l l o w i n g th e d i s mi s s a l o f

th e i r c l a i ms 2 and later filed a co rrected m otion to set aside. For the purpose s of this ap peal, we will re fer to the motions collectiv ely

as the L indsey s’ “motion to set aside. ” The record

reflects that theLin dsey s receiv ed tw enty
- one day s no tice an d opportun ity to respon d 3 prior to the filingof the motion for san ctions. -2- OP I NI ON M a ttie L in d se yw a s th e p lain tiff in a p e rso n a l in

ju ryc a se f

o llo w in g a n a u to m o b ile acc i denti n 1990. M s . L i nds eyi ni t i al l yfi l ed s ui tagai ns tt he al l eged a t
- faul tdr i veri n 1991. 1 A l t ho ug h she ret ai ned t he servi ces of m ult i ple at t orney s i n the prosecut i on of the m at t er, M s. L i nds ey ’ s cl ai m for damages r emai ned unr es ol ved for m any y ear s . I n 2006 , M s. L ind s ey hi r ed att or neyM ar k L amber tt o l i t i gat e the ca s e. Shor t l yt her eaf t er , M s . L i nds ey r eac hed a s et t l ement agr eementw it h t he def endantdur i ng cour t
- or der ed medi at i on, and the part i es e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n s e n to r d e rd i s mi s s i n g h e rc l a i m. In 200 7, M s. L i nd sey , al on g w i t h h er hus b a n d , f i l ed thi s pro se l aw s ui tal l egi ng a cons pi r acybetw een the att or ney s and i ns ur ance companyi nvol ved i n t he s et t l ement of her c la im . T h e c o m p la in t a n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t a s s e rt e d , in tera lia , t hatt he defe nd ants / app el l ees w rongf ull ycon spi red t o m anu fact ure fal se docu m ents , co n c eal M s. L in d se y ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s, v io late h e r c iv il righ ts, a n d f ru stra te h e r c o n stitu tio n a l r ig h t to tr ial b y jury

. T h e L ind sey s req u ested reli ef in the am o u n t of $ 1 5 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 in co m p en sato ry a n d p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . T he def end a n t s r e s p o n d e d wi t h i n d i v i d u a l mot i o n s t o d i s mi s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a cl ai m , w hi ch the tr i al cour tul t i m at el ygr ant ed i n s epar at e or der s . T he Li nds ey s di d not ap p ea l th e d ism issal of their claim s; i n s te ad , theyfil ed a m o ti o n to se t asi d e the co u rt ’s jud g m en t n ea rl y o n e y ea r lat er. T h e ap p ell ee s u n ifo rm ly o p p o sed the m o ti o n an d G ary 2 W i l ki ns on and R us s el l R ut l edge, couns el fort he def endanti n t he per s onal i n jurycas e, r es ponded w i t h a mot i o n fors anct i ons ar gui ng t hatt he Li nds ey s ’ m ot i on t o s etas i de w as ent i r el yw i t houtanybas i s i n l aw orfac t
. T he t ri al c o ur tdet er m i ned af t era fa i r l yl engthy 3 hear i ng t hat t he L i nds ey s ’ m ot i on t o s et as i de s houl d be deni ed. T he courtfur t herconcl uded that san cti o n s p u rsua n t t o R u le 11

. 0 3 o f th e T en n esse e R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re w ere appr opr i at e and or der ed the Li nds ey s t o pay$1, 000 i nt o t he cour t
. T he Li nds ey s appea l ed. T he part i es col l ect i vel ypr es entthe fol l ow i ng i s s ues , as w e per cei ve them, forour r evi ew : ( 1) w hethert he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdeni ed the Li nds ey s ’ m ot i on t o s etas i de i t s pr i or or der s of di s m i s s al ; ( 2) w hether t he t r i al cour t ’ s i m pos i t i on of s anct i onsWe spe cifically no te that the ap pellants’ request for resc is s i on p ur s uant to Tenness ee C ode 4 Ann otated section 29- 34- 102, whic h was include d in their “am ended com plaint,”w as eith er reso lv ed b y the trial court in the o rig inal dismissal of their claim s or was not b efore the trial court if, as the appellants argue, the amended com

plaint was stricken. In either ev ent, the issue is not prope rly before this C ourt o n ap peal of th e tr ia l c ourt ’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n to s et a si de , n or i s any a ll eg ed e rr or in th e tr ia l c ourt ’s characteriz ation of o r alleg ed d ecision to strike the “am ended com plaint.” The L in ds ey s ra is e as as ep ar at e is su e whe th er th e tr ia l c ourte rr ed

whe n ita ll eg edly

f ai le d to r ul e 5 upon their m otion to enter a forensic report into the record. We will consid er this q uestionw ithin th e bro ader analy sis of their motion to set aside. -3- compl i ed w i t h R ul e 11. 03 of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e; ( 3) w hethert he L i nds ey s fi l ed a fr i vol ous appea l

. T he L i nds ey s r ai s e addi t i onal i s s ues r el at ed t o t he or i gi nal s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n ta n d t h e o r i g i n a l d i s mi s s a l o f t h e i r c o mp l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. T hes e i s s ues , how ever , ar e notpr oper l ybefor e t hi s C our t beca us e t heyw er e r es ol ved i n fi nal j ud gm ents t hat w e re no tapp eal ed w i t hin the ti m e l i m i tprescr i bed byt he p rocedu ral rul es, s ee T enn. R
. A pp. P. 4( a) , and the appe l l ant s have not d em o n st r at ed a r i ghtt o r el i ef f r om e ith e r f in a l ju d g m e n t. 4 T he L i nds ey s fi r s ts ubm i tt hatt he tr i al cour terr ed w hen i tdeni ed thei rm ot i on t o s et as i de the pr i oror der s of t he court
. R ul e 60. 02 of the Tennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedure 5 p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

O n m o tio n a n d u p o n su c h ter m s a s a re ju st, th e c o u rt m a yre liev e a p a rty ort he part y ’ s l egal r epr es ent at i ve fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , or der orpr ocee di ng f o r th e f o llo w in g re a s o n s : (1 ) m ista k e , ina d v e rte n c e , su rp rise o r e x c u sa b le negl ect ; ( 2) fr aud ( w hetherher et ofor e denomi nat ed i nt r i ns i c orextr i ns i c), m i s r epr es ent at i on, orot herm i s conductof an a dver s e part y ; ( 3) t he j udgm ent i s voi d; ( 4) t he j udgm ent has been sa t i s fi ed, r el eas ed ordi s char ged, ora pr i or ju d g m e n t u p o n w h ich it is b a se d h a s b e e n re v e rse d o r o th e rw ise v a c a ted , o r it i s no l ongerequi t abl e thata j udgm ents houl d have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on; or ( 5) any ot herr eas on j us t i fy i ng r el i ef f r om t he oper at i on of the j udgm ent
. T he m ot i on s hal l be m ade w i t hi n a re as onabl e t i m e, and forr eas ons ( 1) and ( 2) not m or e than one y earaft ert he j udgm ent , o rde r or pr ocee di ng w as ent er ed or ta k e n . T e n n . R . C iv . P . 6 0 .0 2
. R ul e 60. 02 “pr ovi des an except i onal r emedy t hatenabl es par t i es t o obt ai n r el i ef f r om a fi nal j udgm ent
. ” D el ong v. V ander bi l tU

ni v. , 186 S. W
. 3d 506, 511 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2005) ( ci t i ng N ai l s v. A etna I

ns . C o. , 8 3 4 S .W .2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 4 (T e n n . 1 9 9 2 ); H u n g e rfo rdv . S ta te , 149-4-

S .W .3 d 7 2 , 7 6 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 )). T h e ru le “ a c ts a s a n e sc a p e v a lv e f ro m p o ss ib le in e q u ity th a t m ig h t o th e rw ise a rise f ro m th e u n re len tin g im p o sitio n o f th e p rin c ip le o f f in a lity i m bedded i n our pr ocedur al rul es . ” Thom ps on v. F i r em en'

s Fund I ns . C o. , 798 S. W
. 2d 235, 238 ( T enn. 1990)

. “B eca us e of the i m por t ance of thi s ‘ pr i nci pl e of fin ali ty , ’ t he ‘ es cape val ve’ s h o u ld notbe ea s i l yopened. ” Toney v. Muel l erC o. , 810 S. W
. 2d 145, 146 ( T enn. 1 9 9 1 ). R u le 6 0 .0 2 is n o t in ten d e d to p ro v id e p a rties w ith a n o p p o rtu n itym e re lyto re lit ig a te a rg u m e n ts p re se n ted to a n d re jec ted b ya trial c o u rt: R u le 6 0
. 02 i s notm eantt o be us ed i n everycas e i n w hi ch the ci r cumst ance s o f a p a rt yc h a n g e a f

te r t h e e n tr yo f

a ju d g m e n t o r o rd e r. N oris the r ul e a m echa nis m f

or use by a part

y w ho is m erel

y dis sat isf

i ed w i th the res ulto

f a p a r tic u la rc a s e . I d. ( emphasi s added)

. I ns t ead, t he r el i ef pr ovi ded i n R ul e 60. 02 appl i es “onl yi n t hos e fe w c a s e s th a t m e e t o n e o r m o re o f th e c ri te ri a s ta te d .” Id

. T h e b u rd e n to d e m o n s tr a te a b a s is f o r re lie f u n d e r R u le 6 0 .0 2 is o n th e m o v a n t. B anks v. D em ent

C ons tr . C o. , 817 S. W
. 2d 16, 18 ( T enn. 1991) ( ci t i ng B r um l ow v. B r um l ow , 729 S .W .2 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); Jef f ers on v. P neum o Ser vs . C or p. , 699 S. W
. 2d 181, 186 (T en n . C t. A p p. 1985) )

. “The barforobt ai ni ng r el i ef i s s etveryhi gh, and the bur den bor ne by t he m ovi ng par t y i s heavy

. ” D el ong , 186 S. W
. 3d at511 ( ci t i ng Johns on v. Johns on , 3 7 S

. W
. 3 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 5 n . 2 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 )). E v en if g rou n d s fo r re li ef are p rov en , the tri al co u rt m a yre f u s e in its d is c re t i o n t o s e t a s id e a ju d g m e n t. John Barb, I nc. v. U nder w r i t ers at Ll oyds of

London , 65 3 S. W
. 2d 42 2, 42 3 ( Ten n. Ct. A pp . 19 83 ) ( c i t i ng Ten n. R. Ci v. P. 60. 02)

. A fai l ur e t o per s uade the tr i al cour tt o ex erc ise it s di s cr et i on i n favorof gr ant i ng r el i ef i s di ffi cul tt o over come: “I n pr act i cal eff ect , a tr i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on of w hether t o g r a ntr e l i e f p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 60
. 02 i s vi r tua l l y c on c l us i ve . ” Robe r t Bank s , J r . & J un e F. E n tm a n , T

enn essee C i vi lP rocedu re § 1 2 -3[ d ], at 12 -56 (3d ed

. 2 0 0 9 ) (fo o tno te om itted). T h is C o u rt w ill o v e rtu rn a trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t o r d e n yre lief u n d e r R u le 60. 02 onl y if the cour thas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on. Henr y v. G oi ns , 104 S. W
. 3d 475, 479 ( T enn. 2003) ( ci t i ng U

nder w ood v. Zuri ch Ins

. C o. , 854 S. W
. 2d 94, 97 ( T enn. 1993) )

. “The abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d r equi r es us t o cons i der : ( 1) w hethert he dec i s i on has a s uffi ci ent evi dent i aryfoundat i on; ( 2) w hethert he t r i al cour t corr ect l yi dent i fi ed and pr oper l yappl i ed t he appr opr i at e l egal pr i nci pl es ; and ( 3) w het hert he dec i s i on i s w i t hi n t he r ange of acc ept abl e al t ernat i ves . ” T h o m p so n v . C h a

fetz , 164 S. W
. 3d 571, 574 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng St at e ex r el

. V

aughn v. Kaatr ude , 21 S. W
. 3d 244, 248 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2000) )

. T he abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d does not al l ow t hi s C our t t o s ubs t i tut e the pane l ’ s j udgm entfor th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e tr ia l c o u rt
. Henry , 1 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 7 9 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). W e w ill u p h o ld t he d eci si on of a tr i al cou rtso l on g as reasonable m i nd s can dis agree abo ut i t s corr ect ness,It is n ot at all clear why this ev idence could

not havebeen produced

prior to th e orig inal dismissal 6 of theLin dsey s’ claim s. The Lind sey s’ motion is best characteriz ed as relyingon sub sections (1), (2), and (5) of Rule 60 .02
. 7 We ack now ledg e that courts apply different standard s whe n determining whe ther a m ov ant h as d emonstrated a ri ght to r el ie f un de r th e v ario us s ub se ct io ns b ut c on clud e th at

r ec ount in gth es e di st in ct io ns is unn ec es sary in theprese nt ap peal. The L indsey s’ argum ent th at the trial court abuse d its discre tion is entirely w ithout m erit as to eac h o f theseground s. -5- E ldr i dge v. E ldr i dge , 42 S. W
. 3d 82, 85 ( T enn. 2001) , and w i l l s et as i de the court ’ s deci s i on onl yi f the courthas ap p li ed an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d orhas r eac hed an i l l ogi cal or u n r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n t h a tc a u s e s a n i n j u s t i c e t o t h e c o m p l a i n i n g p a r t y, P eg u e s v . Ill . C e n t. R

. R

. C o. , 288 S. W
. 3d 350, 353 ( T enn . C t. A p p . 2008) ( ci t i ng Me r c e rv . V a n d e r b ilt U

n iv ., I nc. , 1 3 4 S .W .3 d 1 2 1 , 1 3 1 (T e n n . 2 0 0 4 ))

. O n appea l , t he Li nds ey s have fai l ed t o s et for t h an ade quat e l egal ar gum entexpl ai ni ng how t he tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdecl i ned t o s etas i de i t s pr i orj udgm ent
. T he L i nds ey s ’ m ot i on t o s etas i de es s ent i al l yr epr o d uced the ar gum ent s r ai s ed pr i ort o t he or i gi nal d ism iss a l o f

th e ir c laim s, w h ich th e ya ttem p ted to s u p p o r t w ith a n e w lyp ro d u c e d f o re n sic r epor tconcl udi ng t hat M s . L i nds ey di d not s i gn t he contr act w i t h herat t or neyi n t he per s onal in ju ry c a se . U p o n re v iew , th e trial c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e m o tio n to se t as id e w a s n o t w e ll-

6 t aken. T o t he ext entw e ar e abl e t o deci phert hei rbr i ef, w e ar e unabl e t o concl ude thatt he L i nds ey s have de m ons t r at ed anyabus e of di s cr et i on i n t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on. W e fi nd no m i s t ake, i nadvert ence , s urpr i s e, excus abl e negl ect , fr aud, m i s r epr es ent at i on, ot her m i s conductof an a dver s e part y , oranyother rea s on t hatw oul d j us t i fyr el i ef f r om t he di s m i s s al of t hei rcl ai m s . W e furt her di s agr ee w i t h t he cont ent i on t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d not 7 addr es s t he Li nds ey s ’ m ot i on t o pr es entt hei rfor ens i c r epor tand fai l t o s ee how t he fi ndi ngs c o n tain e d th e re in w o u ld e n tit le th e m to re lief

. H a v in g re v iew e d th e re c o rd a n d th e a rg u m e n ts of couns el , w e conc l ude thatt he tr i al cour tdi d notabu s e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdeni ed the L in d s e y s ’ m o tio n to s e t a s id e . T h e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n is a f f ir m e d

. T he L i nd sey s n ext s ub m i tt hat the tr i al cou rterr ed w hen i ti m po sed R ule 11 sancti on s. R ule 11. 02 of the T enn essee R ules of C i vil P rocedu re pr ov i des as foll ow s:

B ypr es ent i ng t o t he cou rt ( w hetherbys i gni ng, fi l i ng, s ubm i t t i ng, or l at eradvoca t i ng) a pl eadi ng, w r i t t en mot i on, orot herpaper , an at torn eyor unr epr es ent ed part yi s cert i fy i ng t hatt o t he bes tof the pe r s on’ s know l edge, i nfor m at i on, an d bel i ef, for m ed af t eran i nqui r yr eas onabl e undert he c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,— (1) i ti s not be i ng present ed for anyi m proper pu rpose, such as t o h aras s ort o caus e unnec es s arydel ayorneedl es s i ncr eas e i n t he cos tof l i t i gat i on;Altho ugh theLin dsey s do no t spec ifically add ress th e failure to com

ply with Rule 1 1.0 3(3) s erv ing 8 as thebas is for our decision to v acate, we find g ood cause t o c on sider th e qu estion within their broad er argum ent o n theim

propriety of Rule 11 san ctions. -6- (2) th e c lai m s, d ef

en ses, an d o ther leg al co n tention s the rein a re w arr ant ed byexi s t i ng l aw or b y a n o n fri vol ous ar gum entfort he ext ens i on, mo d i f i c a t i o n , o rr e v e r s a l o f

e x i s t i n g l a w o rt h e e s t a b l i s h me n to f n e w l a w; (3) the all eg ati o n s an d o ther f ac tual co n tention s h av e e v iden ti ary su p p o rt o r, if sp ec ifi ca ll yso iden ti fied , are li k elyto h av e e v iden ti arysu p p o rt aft era r eas onabl e opportuni t yforfur t heri nves t i gat i on ordi s covery ; and (4) the d en ial o f fa ctua l co n tention s are w arran ted on the ev iden ce o r, i f s peci fi cal l ys o i dent i fi ed, ar e re as onabl y bas ed on a l ack of i nfor m at i on or bel i ef. T e n n . R . C iv . P . 1 1 .0 2
. A vi ol at i on of R u le 1 1
. 02 i s s anct i onabl e i f the part y , at t or ney , orl aw fi r m t o be s anct i oned does notw i t hdr aw o r c or r ectt he off endi ng fi l i ng, document , orr epr es ent at i on aft err ece i vi ng n o ti ce and a r eas onabl e oppor tuni t yt o r es pond. T enn. R
. C i v. P. 11. 03. A lth o u g h th e im p o s itio n o f R u le 1 1 s a n c tio n s is re v ie w e d f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n , Kr ug v. Kr ug , 8 38 S. W
. 2d 197, 205 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1992) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , a courti m pos i ng sa n c tio n s m u st d e sc rib e th e c o n d u c t it d e ter m in e s v io late s R u le 1 1 .0 2 a n d e x p lain th e b a sis fo r an ysan cti o n itim p o ses. T en n . R
. C iv. P
. 1 1
. 0 3 (3). T h is d ir ec ti v e is m an d atory ; fail u re t o des cr i be the conduc tdet er m i ned t o cons t i tut e a vi olat ion o r to expl ai n t he bas i s fort he s a n c tio n im p o s e d is g ro u n d s f o r r e v e rs a l. E

. g . , E ll iottv. Akey , No. E 2 0 0 4 -01 4 7 8 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 5 W L 9 7 5 5 1 0 , at *4 -5 (T en n . C t. A p p . A p r. 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ); McG ahey v

. McG ahey , N o. W 2003- 01051- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2003 W L 22272350, at*6 ( T enn. C t. A p p . O ct. 1
. 2 0 0 3 ). B utfai l ur e t o adher e t o t he mandat es of R ul e 11. 03( 3) does not r equi r e r ever s al ; an appe l l at e courtm ayexer ci s e i t s author i t y t o vaca t e s anct i ons and r emand f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n w h e n a p p ro p ri a te
. See T enn. R
. A pp. P. 36( a) ( r ecogni zi ng t he br oad author i t yof appe l l at e court s t o gr antany r el i ef t o w hi ch a par t y i s ent i t l ed)

. O urr evi ew of t he r ecor d r evea l s t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s or derdoes notexpl ai n t h e basi s fort he s anct i ons i mpo s e d a g a i n s tt h e a p p e l l a n t s . W e n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n c l u d e t h a tr e v e r s a l i s n o tw ar r ant ed 8 undert he fa ct s . W e acc or di ngl y vaca t e t he i m pos i t i on of R ul e 11 s anct i ons and r emand for fur t hercons i der at i on cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. A s a f in a l m a tter, w e a d d re ss th e re q u e st o f a p p e llee s G a ryW ilk in so n a n d R u ss e ll R u tled g e f

o r a n a w a rd o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a n d c o s ts in c u r re d a s a re su lt o f th is a p p e a l. T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 2 7 -1 -1 2 2 p ro v id e s fo r da m a g e s inc u rre d in re sp o n se to a f riv o lo u s a p p e a l:-7-

W hen i t appear s t o anyr evi ew i ng cour tt hatt he appe al fr om anycour tof r ecor d w as fr i vol ous ort aken so lel y fordel ay , t he courtm ay , ei t herupon m ot i on of a pa r t yorof i t s ow n m ot i on, aw ar d j us tdamages agai ns tt he appel l ant , w hi ch mayi ncl ude butneed notbe l i m i t ed t o, cos t s , i nt er es ton t he ju d g m e n t, an d e x p e n se s in c u rre d b yth e a p p e llee a s a re su lt o f th e a p p e a l. T enn. C ode A nn. § 27- 1- 122 ( 2000)

. A n appea l i s “fr i vol ous ” i f i ti s devoi d of m er i torhas no reas on able chance o f success. R obi ns on v. C ur r ey , 153 S. W
. 3d 32, 42 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng I

ndus

. D ev. B d. of

the C i t y of Tul l ahom a v. H

ancock , 901 S. W
. 2d 382, 385 (Ten n. C t
. A pp . 19 95 ))

. In li gh tof o ur deci si on t o v acat e t he tr i al cou rt ’s order on sancti on s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is is n o t a f ri v o lo u s a p p e a l. C oncl usi on For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m t he deni al of the Li nds ey s ’ m ot i on t o s etas i de, v a c a t e t h e i mpo s i t i o n o f s a n c t i o n s , f

i n d t h e a p p e a l i s n o tf

r i v o l o u s , a n d r e ma n d f

o rf u r t h er proceed i ng s consi st ent w i t h thi s op in io n. C ost s of t his app eal are t axed t o the app el l ants , M a t t i e M
. L i n d s e y a n d E d m o n d L
. L i n d s e y, f o rw h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

_________________________________ DAVI D R
. F AR M E R, J UDGE