1 

# FILED March 5, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N THECOUR

TOFAPPEALSOFTENNES SEE

DUANE A. PETER

S , ) C / A N O . 03A 01- 9508- C

V - 00295 ) BLOUNTCOUNTY C I R C UI TCOUR

T Pl a i ntif f - A

pp e lla nt , )

) ) ) v. ) ) HONOR

ABLEW . DALEYOUNG, ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) COM M ONW EALTH AS S OC

I ATES , )

) A PPEA LD I SM I SSED D e f e n d a nt - A

pp e l l ee. ) R

EM ANDED

K EV I N W . S H EPH ER D , M a r y v ille , for A

pp e lla nt . DAVI D T. BLAC

K a n dC. EDW

I N SHOEM

AKER o f KI ZER

AND BLAC

K, M a r y v ille , for A

pp e lle e .

O PI N I O N Sus a no, J .1T.C.A. § 48-2-101, et seq . 2T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq . 3Commonwealth also relied upon the Federal Arbitration Act. We do not find it necessary to determine if this federal legislation is applicable to this case. Cf. Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. , 03S01-9410-CH-00091, 1996 WL 15857 at *7, footnote 2 (Supreme Court at Knoxville, January 16, 1996). 2 Thi s i s a n a c t i on br ought by D ua ne A . Pe t e r s ( Pe t e r s ) f or a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of t he Te nne s s e e Se c ur i t i e s A c t of 1980 1 a nd t he Te nne s s e e C ons um e r Pr ot e c t i on A

c t of 1977 2 . Pe t e r s ' s u i t a ga i ns t C

om m onw e a l t h A

s s oc i a t e s ( C

om m onw e a l t h) a r os e out of i nve s t m

e nt s m a de by Pe t e r s t hr ough D a vi d D udki n, a n a ge nt of C om m onw e a l t h. C

om m onw e a l t h m

ove d t o s t a y t hi s a c t i on a nd t o c om pe l a r bi t r a t i on of Pe t e r s ' c l a i m s pur s ua nt t o T. C. A . § 29- 5- 301 e t s e q . , th e U ni f or m A r b itr a tio nA

c t 3 . I n s uppor t of i t s m ot i on, C

om m onw e a l t h r e l i e d upon a w r i t t e n a gr e e m

e nt , s i gne d by Pe t e r s , w

h e r e i nh e agr eedt os ub m i t al l co nt r o v e r s i e s b e t w eent h e p a r tie s toa r b itr a tio n . Th e tr i a l c o ur t gr a nt e dC o m m o n w e a lth ' s m ot i on, s t a yi ng a l l pr oc e e di ngs i n c our t a nd or de r i ng t he pa r t i e s t opr o c e e dw

itha r b itr a tio n . Pe t e r s a pp e a l s , ra i s i n gthe f ol l ow i ng i s s ue s : 1. I s t he a r bi t r a t i on a gr e e m e nt voi d unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t he Te nne s s e e Se c ur i t i e s A c t of 1980? 2 . D i dth e tr i a l c o ur t e r r inor de r i n g a r b itr a tio no f Pe t e r s ' c l a i m s ?3 I Pe t e r s doe s not di s put e t ha t he s i gne d a " C us t om e r A gr e e m e nt " w i t h C om m onw e a l t h w

hi c h s t a t e s t ha t " c ont r ove r s i e s a r i s i ng be t w

e e n [ Pe t e r s ] a nd [ C om m onw e a l t h] . . . s ha l l be de t e r m i n e db ya r b itr a tio n . " H e a s s e r t s , h o w

e v e r , th a t the a gr e e m e nt i s voi d unde r t he f ol l ow i ng pr ovi s i on of t he Te nne s s e e Se c ur i t i e s A

c t of 1980: A ny c ondi t i on, s t i pul a t i on, or pr ovi s i on bi ndi ng a ny pe r s on a c qui r i ng a ny s e c ur i t y t o w a i ve c om

pl i a nc e w

i t h a ny pr ovi s i on of t hi s pa r t or a ny r ul e or or de r he r e unde r i s voi d. T. C. A . § 48- 2- 122( i ) . Pe t e r s c ont e nds t ha t " t he a r bi t r a t i on lim ita tio nw

ithi nhi s C

u s t o m e r A gr e e m e nt is a pr o v i s i o nw hi c h w o u l da tte m

p t tolim

it [ hi s ] a b ilitytoc h a lle n g e " C o m m o n w e a lth f or a l l e ge d s t a t ut or y vi ol a t i ons . Pe t e r s f ur t he r a r gue s t ha t

" [ t ] h e tr i a l c o ur t ' s a c tio ninc o m p e llinga r b itr a tio nh a s in e f f e c t pr e e m

pt e d t he a ppl i c a t i on of t he t w o s t a t ut or y vi ol a t i ons r a i s e d by [ hi m

] . " A s canb e s een , Pe t e r s ar g u e s i nt h e al t e r n a t i v e . Fi r s t , he c ont e nds t ha t t hi s c a s e i s not c ont r ol l e d by t he U ni f or m A r bi t r a t i on A

c t be c a us e , s o t he a r gum e nt goe s , t he a r bi t r a t i on pr ovi s i on i n que s t i on i s voi d a s vi ol a t i ve of T. C. A . § 48- 2- 122( i ) . Se c ond, he c ont e nds t ha t e ve n i f t he U ni f or m A r bi t r a t i on A

c t a ppl i e s , t he t r i a l c our t s houl d not ha ve or de r e d4

a r b itr a tio n . W

e w ill a d dr e s s the a pp e lla nt ' s f i r s t is s u e f or the t hr e s hol d pur pos e of de t e r m i ni ng w

he t he r t he pa r t i e s ' C us t om e r A gr e e m e nt is s ubj e c t tothe U ni f or m A r b itr a tio nA

c t . I I The pos i t i on a dva nc e d by Pe t e r s i n hi s f i r s t i s s ue w a s r e j ect e db yt h e U ni t e dSt a t e s Supr e m e C o ur t i na case ar i s i n g unde r a f unc t i ona l l y i de nt i c a l pr ovi s i on of t he f e de r a l Se c ur i t i e s A

c t of 1933. I n R odr i gue z de Q

ui j as v . She ar s o n/ A

m e r i c a nE

xp ., I nc ., 490 U

. S . 477, 109 S . C

t . 1917, 104 L. Ed. 2d 526 ( 1989) , t he c our t f ound a n a gr e e m e nt t o a r bi t r a t e di s put e s e nf or c e a bl e , not i ng t ha t

[ b] y a gr e e i ng t o a r bi t r a t e a s t a t ut or y c l a i m , a pa r t y doe s not f or go t he s ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s a f f or de d by t he s t a t ut e ; i t onl y s ubm i t s t o t he i r r e s o l utio nina na r b itr a l, rat he r th a n a judi c i a l, f or u m . I d., 490 U

. Sa t 481, 109 S . C t a t 1920. W

e a gr e e w

i t h t he a na l ys i s of t he Supr e m e C our t . Pe t e r s ' s ubs t a nt i ve s t a t ut or y r i ght s w

i l l not be a br i dge d by s ubm i s s i on of hi s c l a i m s t o a body of a r bi t r a t or s r a t he r t ha n t o a j udi c i a l f or um . The f ol l ow

i ng obs e r va t i on by t he c our t i n R odr i gue z de Q

ui j as hol ds t r ue he r e : The r e i s not hi ng i n t he r e c or d be f or e us , nor i nt h e f act s o f w hi c hw e cant a ke j u di c i a l n o tic e , to in di c a t e th a t the a r b itr a l s ys t e m . . . w

oul d not a f f or d t he pl a i nt i f f t he r i g ht s tow

hi c hh e is e ntitle d .5

I d., 490 U

. S . a t 483, 109 S . C t . a t 1921. W

e hol d t he a r bi t r a t i on pr ovi s i on a t i s s ue i n t hi s c a s e i s not voi de d by T. C. A . § 48- 2- 122( i ) . The r e f or e , t he pa r t i e s ' C us t om e r A gr e e m e nt i s s ubj e c t t o t h e U ni f or m A r b itr a tio nA

c t . III R e g a r di n gPe t e r s ' g e n e r a l ch a l l e n g e t ot h e t r i a l c our t ' s or de r c om pe l l i ng a r bi t r a t i on, C om m onw e a l t h a r gue s t ha t s uc h a n or de r i s not a ppe a l a bl e unde r Te nne s s e e ' s s t a t ut or y a r b i t r a t i o ns c he m e . W e agr ee. I nt h e unr e p or t e dcas e o f Ande r s o n C

o unt y v . A

r c hi t e c t ur a l T

e c hni q ue s C

o rp . , N

o. 03A 01- 9205- C H - 00184, 1993 W

L5921 ( C

our t of A

ppe a l s a t K

noxvi l l e , J a nua r y 14, 1993) ( Fr a nks , J . ) , t hi s c our t a ddr e s s e d t he que s t i on of w he t he r a n or de r c om pe l l i ng a r bi t r a t i on i s a ppe a l a bl e , a nd c onc l ude d i t w

a s not . W

e s t a t e d t he f ol l ow i ng i n t he Ande rso n C o unt y opi ni on:

The U ni f or m A r bi t r a t i on A

c t pr ovi de s w

he n a n a pp e a l a s o f r i g ht w ill lie ina r b itr a tio n c a s e s . T. C. A

. S e c . 2 9 - 5 - 3 1 9 s t a t e s : " A pp eal . - - ( a ) A

napp eal m

a yb e t a ke nf r o m

: ( 1) A n or de r de nyi ng a n a ppl i c a t i on t o c om pe l a r bi t r a t i on m a de unde r Se c . 29- 5- 303; ( 2) A n or de r gr a nt i ng a n a pp lic a tio ntos t a ya r b itr a tio n m a de unde r Se c . 29- 5- 303( b) ; ( 3) A n or de r c onf i r m

i ng or de nyi ng c onf i r m

a t i on of a n a w

a r d;4T . C. A. § 29- 5 - 315 pr ovi d e s as f o l l o ws : U pon t h e gr a n t i ng of an or d e r conf i r m i ng, m

odi f y i ng or c o r r e c t i ng an a wa r d , j udgm e n t or dec r e e s h a l l be e n t e r e d i n conf o r m i t y t h e r e w

i t h and be enf o r c e d as any o t h e r j udgm

e n t or dec r e e . Co s t s of t h e appl i c a t i on, a nd of t h e pr o c e e d i ngs s ubs e que n t t h e r e t o , and d i s bur s e m

e n t s m

a y be a wa r d e d by t h e cour t .

6 ( 4) A n or de r m

odi f yi ng or c or r ect i n gan a w a r d ; ( 5) A n or de r va c a t i ng a n a w a r d w i t hout di r e c t i ng a r e - he a r i ng; a nd ( 6) A j udgm e nt or de c r e e e nt e r e d pur s ua nt t o t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s pa r t . ( b) The A

ppe a l s ha l l be t a ke n i n t he m a nne r a nd t o t he s a m

e e xt e nt a s f r om

or de r s or j ud g m e nt s ina c i vi l a c t i o n . " N one of t he ba s e s f or a ppe a l s i n t he f or e goi ng c ode s e c t i on i s m e t . Si nc e t he s t a t ut e a l l ow

s a n a ppe a l f r om

t he gr a nt i ng of a s t a y[ o f a r b itr a tio n ] , th e c or o lla r yis n o a ppe a l i s pr ovi de d f r om t he de ni a l of a s t a y. M or e o v e r , "j u d g m

e nt or decr ee" r e f e r r e dt oi n Se c . 29- 5- 319( a ) ( 6) i s t he e nt r y of j udgm e nt or decr ee as cont e m p l a t e di nT. C. A

. Sec. 2 9 - 5- 315. 4 I d. a t 1993 W

L5921 a t *1. The G e ne r a l A

s s e m bl y ha s not a m

e nde d T. C. A

. § 29- 5- 319 t o a l l ow

a n a ppe a l of a n or de r c om pe l l i ng a r bi t r a t i on s i nc e t he Ande r s o n C

o unt y c a s e . W

e a dhe r e t o our j udgm e nt t ha t w

e c a nnot

" r e a d i n" a pr ovi s i on a l l ow i ng a n a ppe a l i n a f a c t ua l pa t t e r n not s pe c i f i c a l l y r e c ogni z e d i n t he c ode pr ovi s i on t ha t de l i ne a t e s w he n " [ a ] n a ppe a l m a y be t a ke n. " Fur t he r , i n l i ght of t he U ni f or m A r bi t r a t i on A

c t ' s pr ovi s i on m

a nda t i ng t ha t " [ t ] hi s pa r t s ha l l be s o c ons t r ue d a s t o e f f e c t ua t e i t s ge ne r a l pur pos e t o5T.C.A. § 29-5-320. 7

m a ke uni f or m

t he l a w

of t hos e s t a t e s w hi c h e na c t i t 5 , " w e f i n d pe r s ua s i ve c a s e s i n a c c or d w i t h our vi e w

f r om ot he r s t a t e s t ha t ha ve e na c t e d t he pr ovi s i on of our U ni f or m A r bi t r a t i on A

c t de a l i ng w i t ha pp e a l s . Se e , e . g ., C he m - A s h, Inc . v . A

r ka ns as P

o w e r & Li ght C

o ., 751 S . W

. 2d 353 ( A

r k. 1988) ; F

ayet t e C

o unt y F

ar m B ur e a u F e de r at i o nv . M

ar t i n, 758 S . W

. 2d 713 ( K

y. A pp. 1988) ; B

l u ffs , I nc ., v . W

y s o c ki, 314 S . E. 2d 291 ( N . C. A pp. 1984) ; s ee g e n e r a l l y A nnot a t i on, A

ppe al abi l i t y of St at e C our t ' s O

r de r or D

e c r e e C om pe l l i ng or Ref us i ng t o C om pe l Ar bi t r at i on, 6 A . L. R. 4t h 652 ( 1981) . Thi s app eal i s pr e m a t ur e . Th e r e f or e , w e cann o t r each t h e a pp e lla nt ' s is s u e c l a i m i n gth a t the tr i a l c o ur t e r r e din or de r i ng a r bi t r a t i on.

Thi s a ppe a l i s di s m i s s e d. The c os t s on a ppe a l a r e t a xe d t o t he a ppe l l a nt a nd hi s s ur e t y. Thi s c a s e i s r e m a nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or s uc h f ur t he r pr oc e e di ngs a s m a y be ne c e s s a r y, c ons i s t e nt w

i t h t hi s opi ni on.8 ____________________________ C h a r l e s D

. Su s a n o , J r ., J .

CONC UR:

___________________________ H ous t on M

. G odda r d, P. J .

___________________________ H e r s c he l P. Fr a nk s , J .