### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Ja nua ry 14, 200 7 S es sio n
SAMANTHA D. REED v . FIRST H ORI Z ON NATI ONAL BANK, ET AL 

### .

A Dire ct A ppeal f

rom the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-04-2047 The Honorable Arnold Goldin, Ch ancellor

No. W2006-01597-C OA-R3-C V - F iled April 17, 2007

Appellant challeng es the trial court’s order adopting the Report of the Special M ast er, dismiss ing he r ca se, and a uthorizi ng fore closure pr ocee dings. We a ffirm

.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.

Sa manth a D. Re e d, Pr o Se

R

. Mark Glove r and K

ristine L . Roberts of Memphis, Tenne ssee f or Appe llees, first Hor izon National B ank, Mike Low er y , C

. W. Rutledg e, Ka ra B radle y , Matt Nee l, J err y Ba ker, the Money Center, f irst Tennesse e B ank NA

OP IN ION

I. F acts and P roce dure On August 15 , 2 0 00, Samantha Ree d (“Ms. Ree d,” “A ppellant”) enter ed into a loan agr ee m en twi t h Fi rs tT en n es s ee Ba n k Na t i o n al As s o ci at i o n

(“ Fi rs tT en n es s ee , ” “ Ap p el l ee ”) t h ro u gh its F ir st H or izon

Mo ne y Ce nte r d ivi sio n, in t

he a mou nt o f $ 55 ,8 59 .7 7. Th e loa n w a s se c ur e d b y

Ms. Reed’s r esidenc e located at 1892 Ea st Person Avenue , Memphis, Tennesse e. Ms. Reed’ s loan was made pay able in 180 monthly pay ments of $691.77 due on the 15 of each month. At the time of th enter ing into the loan, Ms. Ree d opted to purcha se cr edit life and c redit disability insurance , procur ed throug h Americ an Gen er al Assurance Company (“A merica

n Gene ral” ), and une mploy ment insur an c e , p r o c u r e d

thr o u g h A me r ic anB an k e r s I n s u r an c e Co mp an y o f F lo r id a ( “ A me r ic an Ba nkers” ). The pr emiums for the insura nce c overa g e we re f

inance d by

the loan.-2-

Fr om September 2000 throug h April 2001, Ms. Reed made her monthly pay ments, with three pa y me nts pa st d

ue . In M ay

20 01 , M s. Re ed su

bmi tte d a n une mpl oy

me nt i ns ur anc e c la im t o Am er i ca n Ba

nkers, whic h in turn made the ne x t twenty of Ms. Reed’ s loan pay

ments, from May 2001 throug h Dec ember

2002, the maxim um benef it allowable under

the policy

. Be g inning January 2003, Ms. Reed beg an to be c onsistently past due on he r l oan pay

ments. Ms. Reed made repe ated late pay ments, partial pay

ments, and missed pay

ments.

I n September 2003, Ms. Re ed’s loan was in se rious defa ult, a nd First Tenne ssee c ommenced fore closure pr ocee dings. At that time, Ms. Reed told the bank that she believe d that the bank ha d failed to c redit s o m e o f her pay ments to her loan a ccount. Ms. Ree d also promised to make pay ments on the loan. Ther efor e, F irst Tennesse e stopped the f orec losure proc ess i n order to allow Ms. Reed an oppor

tunity to p ay the balanc e due on the loan as we ll as to investigate Ms. Reed’s alleg ations of missing pay ments. I n October

2003, Ms. Reed m ade suf ficient pa y ments to bring the loan up to date.

I n November

2003, Ms. Reed ag ain fe ll behind in her pay ments. F ir s t T ennesse e investig ated Ms. Reed’s a lleg ations of missing pay ments and dete rmined that their a ccountingrec ords re flec ted all of the pay

ments rec eived from Ms. Re ed. The bank provide d Ms. Reed an oppor tunity to provide any evidenc e that she mig ht have of err ors in the ac count. I n re s p o n s e, M s . Reed sent c opies of
canc elled che cks that she c ontended ha d been misapplied. O n Marc h 16, 2004, First Te nnessee notified Ms. Re ed by letter that all of the chec ks had been revie wed and that all pay ments had bee n pr op e rl y c re dit e d to he r l oa

n a c c ount.

B y late summe r 200 4, Ms. Re e d’ s lo an w a s a g a in i n s e ri ou s d e fa ult . F ir st T e nn e sse e a g a in pursued f orec losure proc eeding s. On October 13, 2004, Ms. Reed filed suit aga inst First Tennesse e, F i r s tH o r i z o nN a t i o n a l B an k , t h e M o n e y C e n t e r , an d f i v e F i r s tT e n n e s s e e e mp l o ye e s ( M i k e L o w e r y, C. W . Rutledge , Kar a B radle y , Matt Nee l, and J err y Ba ker)

. I n her complaint, Ms. Re ed alleg es that F ir st T e nn e sse e fa ile d to c re dit pa y me nts tha t sh e a lle g e dly

ma de on he r l oa n, fa ile d to pr op e rl y maintain her loa

n acc ount, and, as a

result of these alleg ed er

rors, wr ong fully

initiated forec losure proce eding s. First Tennessee and the other named defe ndants filed an answe r deny ing Ms. Ree d’s claims, and F irst Tennesse e filed a counter claim alleg ing that Ms. Reed had de faulted on he r loan.

On Marc h 23 , 20 05 , the c ha nc e ry c ourt e nte re d an Or de r of Re fe re nc e re fe rr ing the c a se to a Specia l Master, De borah H ender son. The court appointed the Special Master to take a nd rec eive
e vid e nc e , to make fi nd ing s o n M s. Re e d’ s a ll egati on s tha t F ir st T e nn e sse e ha d f a ile d to c re dit pay ments made by Ms. Re ed, and to f urnish a repor

t to the c ourt. Both pa

rties submitted information to the Special Master

for he r re view, and a

hear ing w as held on August 25, 2005 to determine the merits of Ms. Reed’ s cl ai ms. Both par ties were g iven an oppor tunity to present e vidence which supported their r espec tive positions. On April 17, 2006, the Spec ial Master f iled her Repor

t of Special Maste r wit h the cha ncer y c ourt , w hic h s tate s in

pa rt :-3- FINDI NGS On the 25 day

of August, 2005, the S p ecial Master th conducte d a hear ing and rec eived evidenc e on the issues as dire cted. A transc ript of the hea

ring has bee n filed her ein.

I t appea rs from the te stimony

o f the Plaintiff (and no obje ction fr o m t h e D e f e n d an ts ) th a t P la in ti f

f k e p t h e r

p ay me n ts r e g u la

r, al t h o u gh n o tn ec es s ar i l y o nt i m e, fr o m S ep t em b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 t h ro u gh April 15, 2001. Ther eaf

ter, Plaintiff bec ame une mploy ed. Howe ver, beg inning Ma

y , 2001, and continuing throug h Dec ember 15, 2002, mortg ag e pay

ments were made on Pl aintiff’s be half by her insura

nce c omp any , A me ri c an B ank e rs . T he i ns ur anc e c omp any , p ur su ant t o their contra ct, paid a total of twenty (20) pa y ments and kept the mortg ag e cur

rent throug h J anuar

y 15, 2003.

Acc ording to First Tennessee Ba nk, neither Plaintiff nor he r insurance comp an y

paid a mortg ag e pay

ment for the month of J anuar y 2003. Plaintiff d i s p u t es the alleg ation and cla ims that the insurance company made the pay ment for her. She testi fi ed during the hea ring that she had a letter from her home which pr oved they had made the pay

ment for he r and pr omised to forwa rd a c opy of the letter to y our Specia l Master a s well as to the bank. N o such letter ha s ever been se nt. T he testimony there afte r was that a pay ment in the amount of $6 92.0 0 w a s ma de on F e br ua ry 27 , 2 00 3 b y

the Pla int if

f. Sa id pay ment was used to satisfy the J anuar y

obligation which still left Fe bruar y 2003 and the late fee for J an uary 2003 due and ow ing. A pay ment in the amount of $692.00 was pa id on March 21, 2003 which
was a pplied to Febr

uary 2003, leaving a balanc e of $69.15 in late fe es plu s th e re g ula

r M arc h n ote du e

. Ac c or din g to F ir st T e nn e sse e , th is patter n co n t i nued for

the months of April and May , 2003, with no
a tte mpt by Pla int if f t o p ay the pa st d

ue a mou nts . O bv iou sly , if Plaintiff could have pr oduced an y evidenc e that either

she or he r ins ur anc e c omp any

ma de the Janu ary

20 03 pay

me nt, a ll o f t

he late
c ha rg e s and a dd iti on a l in te rest cha rg e d w ou ld b e re fu

nd e d to Pla int if f’ s a c c ount.

I n J une 2003, the se cond disputed pay ment scena

rio arose

. First Te nnessee Ba

nk does not have a pay

ment rec orded dur ing that month. Plaintiff a lleg es that she paid in c ash at a Fir s t T ennessee branc h location. Plaintiff had no rec eipt for the pa y ment and cla imed that she had one at home but that it is not leg ible and there fo re she cannot produce it. Ex hibit C which is attac hed her eto is a bre akdown of t h e p ay

ments that were due, pay ments made a

nd late fe es which-4- wer e adde d to eac h month be tween Fe bruar y 2003 and Mar ch 2004. On Sept em b er 15, 2003, Plaintiff made a lump sum pay ment of $1700.00 which wa s applied to h er June, J uly and August 2003 pa y ment s and

the ir re sp e c tiv e late fe e s. I n O c tob e r, 20 03 , a lum p sum pay ment of $1300.00 wa s made a nd applied to S ep t em ber a nd Oc tob e r 2 00 3 p ay

ment s. Th is p ay

me nt b ro ug ht P la int if

f u p to date until November 15, 2003 when the ne x t regular pa y ment would have been due . Unfortunately , Plainti ff d i d not make anothe r pay ment until Decembe r 15, 2003, and the pay ment was for o n l y

$692.00. That amount wa s ap p lied to November 2003, leavinga late f

ee f or November

2003, plus the Dec ember

2003 pay ment due. The late fe es be g an to a c c umu late a g a in. Pla int if f a lso ma de a pa

rt ia l pa y me nt i n J anuar y 2004 (only

$600.00). Since October 2003, up to J une 2005 a total of $3598.49 ha d acc umulated and wa s due to First Te nnessee Ba nk. Ho we ver, since that time additional amounts may have
acc umulated. Shortly

afte r t he hea

ring in this case, af

ter be ing advised t h at the Special Ma ster could not find a ny err ors in the pay ment history

submitt ed by

First Te nnessee Ba

nk, Plaintiff filed an
ac ti o n in th e U n it e d St a te s B an kr u p tc y Co u rt ( Ca s e N u mber 05- 35185) to delay

the possibilit y

of Chancery

Court dismi ssing he r Com pla int

. Plaintiff alleg ed De fenda nt First Tenne ssee B ank ca ncelled her insura

nce a nd at one point stated that she did not believe [sic]
ever purcha sed t he ins uranc e she paid for. Howeve r, Plaintiff utiliz ed the unemploy

ment insurance during the first twenty (20) months she
was une mploy ed. There is no que stion that her pre miums were use d to purcha se unemploy

ment insurance . The only time cre dit life insur an c e w o u ld

b e a p p r o p r iate ly

u s e d is if Pl a in ti f f d ie d

. Y o ur Special Master

asked c ounsel for D efe ndant, Fir st Tennessee Ba nk, to f ur nis h p ro of

that the ins ur anc e e xiste d. A co py of the Ce rt if

ic a te of Insuranc e wa s provided to y our Specia l Master a nd is attache d here to as Exhi bit D.

RECOMMENDA TIONS Your Spec ial Master w as satisfied, after a complete review of the evidenc e prese nted at the hear ing, Plaintiff ha s no proof to support her alleg ations that First Tenne ssee Ba nk failed to r eco rd any pa y me nts , n e ith e r h a s Pla int if f e sta blish e d a ny e rr or s ma de by

F ir st Tenne ss ee ba

nk in her pa

y ment history . Your Spec ial Master b el i ev es P laintiff has be en abusingher pr ivilege s in the judicial sy stem to prolong movingfrom her home. Whenever one for um ga ve-5- Pla int if f a n in dic a tio n s he may

no t pre va il, sh e wo uld

mov e to another forum with the same issue s

. P laintiff long ag o understood that sh e c ou ld n ot p ro ve he r al le g a tio ns

. Ye t she ha s con tin ue d to fi le
c omp la ints again st the ba nk in a ny fo rum th a t sh e be lie ve d w ou ld take the tim e to lis te n, so me tim e s a tte mpt ingto l iti g a te in t wo fo rums at one time. This is simply evidenc e of Plaintiff’s ba d faith.
Your Spec ial Master recommends that the original Complaint filed by the Plaintiff be dismissed against all n am ed Defendan ts, at P laintif f’s cost, and that Plaintiff b e en j oined and r estraine d from destroying a

ny portion of the re al prope rty during the cour se of a

ny fore closure sa le. I t is fur

ther rec ommended that a portion of the r elief
a s r e qu e ste d b y

F ir st T e nn e sse e B ank

Natio na l A sso cia ti on in i ts C o u nter-Claim be g rante d, i.e. that the bank be g rante d permission fr om t he Court to p ro c e e d w ithits fo re c los ur e pr oc e du res if sti ll
nece ssary . Your Spec ial Master doe s not rec ommend that the Court g rant a judge ment ag ainst the Plaintiff in favor of First Te nnessee Ba n k National Association for the bala nce of the mortg ag e due a s re qu e ste d, be c a

us e sa id mor

tg a g e ba lanc e c an b e ob ta ine d f ro m a sa le of the prope rty . Certainly , I F the c ourt dee ms a judg ement ag ainst the Plai n ti f f f o r a tt o r n e y f e e s a p p r o p r iate , y o u r

Sp e c ia l M a s te r rec ommends that it be g rante d.

On J uly 20, 2006, the cha

ncer y court held a hearing on the R eport of the S pecia l Master. The Special Master was present and testified about the hearing that she held on the m atter. The Spec ial Ma ste r t e sti fi e d th a t sh e had verif ie d th a t a ll l oa

n p ay me nts ma de by

Ms. Re e d h a d b e e n p ro pe rl y applied. The S pecia l Master ex plained that beca use Ms

. Reed had missed various pay ments, made la te pa y me nts , a nd ma de pa rt ia l pay me nts , some pa

y me nts that she did make we nt sol e ly to i nte re st
and no t to pr inc ipa l, c a

us ingthe pr inc ipa l ba lanc e on Ms. Re e d’ s loan to r e ma in t he same a ft e r t

ho se pa y m e n t s h a d b e e n m a d e

. M s

. R e e d w a s a l s o g i v e n an o p p o rtu n i t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e nc e a t th is h ea ri n g.
On J uly 26, 2006, the cha

ncer y court entered its Orde r Adopti ng Report of Special Master
and Di smi ssi ngthe Ca se . T he or de r s tate s in pe rt ine nt p a

rt :

I t further appea rs to the C ourt that the findi ng s and re commendations set forth i n t h e Report of Special Master

are supported by

the
e v i d e n c e an d t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a s p r o d u c e d n o p r o o f t o t h e c o n t r ar y

. It further appea

rs t o the Court that Plaintiff conce des that she ha s made no pay ments on the loan at issue for at least one y ear . As such, the Court he re by a do pts the Re po rt

of Spe c ia l Ma ste r i n f

ull wi th t he so le
exc e p ti o n th a t t h e Co u rt d e c li n e s to a d o p t t h e Sp e c ia l M a s ter’s
re c omm e nd a tio n th a t F ir st T e nn e sse e be awa rd e d it s atto rn e y s f

e e s.-6- I t is t h erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Report of Spec ial Master is ADO PTED AND APPROVED I N FU L Lwith the so l e exception that the Court dec lines to awar d
a tto rn e y s f

e e s to the De fe nd ants

.
I t is fur ther ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Pla int if f’ s Co mpl a int

a g a ins t a ll n a me d D e fe nd ants and F ir st Tenne ss ee Ba

nk National Association’s (“F irst Tennesse e’s” ) Counterclaim ag ainst Plainti ff a re he reb y

DI SMI SSED W I TH PREJ UDI CE.

I t is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that F ir st Tenne ss ee i s au th ori z ed t o i ni ti ate for ecl os ure p roce edi ngs t hi rty (3 0) da y s a ft e r t his Or de r b e c ome s f

ina l.

I t is further ORDERED, ADJ UDGED , AND DE CREED that Plaintiff is enjoined and restra ined from destroy ing a ny portion of the
re a l pro pe rt

y fr om the pr e se nt day thr ou g h an d inc lud ingthe c ours e of fo re c los ur e pr oc e e din g s.

I t is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DE CREED that all court c osts are a ssessed ag ain s t P l aintiff for which let execution i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

II. Issues Ms. Reed appe als and pre sents the foll owing seven issues, as st ated in her br ief, for revie w:
1

. S h o u l d

t h e r ep o rt o f t h e S p ec i al M as t er b e u p h el d

t h e f ac t -f i n d i n gs co n t ra d i ct s [ s i c] t h e t ra n s cr i p t s o f t h e h ea ri n g? 2. Did the Trial Court Err ed [sic] by not allowing the (2) [si c] additional pay ment histories filled with err ors and inconsistenc es of the ba nk not to be taken a s evidenc e to support the Appe llant’ s Complaint of B re a c h o f C on tr a c t? 3. Did the Trial Court er red [sic] by

no t al lowing the bank’s own counsel stateme nts of admit t i n g l iability in support of Appellant’s Com pla int of B re a c h o f C on tr a c t? 4. Did the Trial Court judg ment [si c] be upheld when the Appellant established the bias f

rom the pre vious Chancellor whe n the ca se wa s rea ssigne d to another Chanc ellor on Oppression, suppression of evidenc e and c o n c e a le d statements and to support Appe llant’s Br eac h of Con tr a c t?-7- 5. Did the Trial Court er r to [si c] enforc e a fore closure when the ba lance
rema ined the same showing a bre ach a nd by separ ating the ag ree ment f r o m t h e D e e d o f T r u s t i nh o ld in g A p p e ll an t B r e a c h o f a D e e d [s ic ]? 6. I s four y ear s-consider ed [sic] rea sonable time whe n a bre ach ha s occur red by the Mortg ag e holder who ref uses to proper ly

corr ect a n a c c ount? 7. Should the security interest of an ag ree ment be voided as well as the deed when the br eac h was e x cessive by the Appellee

. We p e rc e ive many

of Ms. Re e d’ s is su e s to ov e rl a p, and the re fo re , w e re state Ms. Re e d’ s st a te d is su e s a s th e fo llo wi ngthr e e iss ue s:
1. Whe the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d w he n it a do pte d the Spe c ia l Ma ste r’ s fi nd ingthat Ms

. Reed ha s no evidenc e to support her alleg ations that First Te nnessee Ba nk National As so c iatio n f

a ile d to re c or d p ay

me nts and

to p ro pe rl y

ma int a in h e r l oa

n a c c ount; 2. Whether the trial c ourt err ed when it allowed Fir st Tennessee to initi ate f orec losure proce eding s ag ainst Ms. Reed; and 3. Whether the re cord sup p o rt s Ms. Reed’s a lleg ations that the trial cour t was biased ag ainst her a

nd failed to a dmit evidence that she prese nted.

III
. Ana lys is

Th e tr ia l c o u

r t ’ s o r d e r r e fe re nc ingthi s matte r t o a Spe c ia l Ma ste r, the Spe c ia l Ma ste r’ s r e po rt , and the tria l court’s orde r ado p ting the Spec ial Master’ s repor t affe ct our standa

rd of r eview on
a pp e a l. A c on c ur

re nt fi nd ing of a ma ste r and a tr ia l c ourt

is c on c lus ive on

a pp e a l, e xce pt whe re it is upon an issue not pr oper to be ref err ed, wher e it is based on an e rror of law or a mix ed question of fa ct and law , or whe re it is not s u p p o rt ed by any materia l evidence

. Archer v. Archer , 907 S.W. 2d 41 2, 41 5 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 1 99 5) ; Barham v. Cooper, 19 97 WL54 29 22 , at *7 (T e nn . Ct

. A p p

. Se p t. 5 , 1 9 9 7 )

. T h is s ta n d ar d o f r e v ie w is s im il ar to o u r s ta n d ar d w h e n r e v ie w ing ajury verdic t; we must affirm if the re is a ny materia l e vidence to suppor t the trial court’ s concur

renc e. See Coates v. Thom

pson , 713 S.W .2d 83, 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Te nn. R. App. P. 13(d). To beg in, Ms. Ree d argues that the trial court err ed in f inding that Ms. Reed had no e vidence to s up po rt

he r a lle g a tio ns tha

t F ir st T e nn e sse e fa ile d to re c or d p ay me nts and

to p ro pe rl y

mai nt a in her loa n acc ount. Ms. Reed argues that F irst Tennesse e provided her with inac curate pay ment histories reg arding her loan acc ount and that Fir st Tennessee failed to prope rly rec ord pay

ments that she made . Both the Spec i al M as t er and the chance ry court provide d Ms. Reed with repe ated opportunities to present evide nce supporting her claims. Howeve r, the re cord in this case does not include any

such evide nce. Ms. Ree d’s ar g ument focuse s on acc ount histories in which the balanc e on the loa n r e ma ine d th e same a ft e r p ay me nts we re ma de . H ow e ve r, th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that Ms

. Reed’s loan is a

n amortized loan in which a por tion of eac h pay

ment g oes to interest a

nd a portion to principal. The Spec ial Master te stified that when amort i z ed l o an s become in defa ult, any pay ments rec eived a

re a pplied to the outstanding interest, often re sulting in the bala nce sta ying the-8-

same. The rec ord re flec ts that Ms. Reed did in fact mi ss pay ments, resulting in the pay ments that she did make being applied solely to interest, rather than to the pr incipal amount due. The evidenc e in t his c a se c le arl y

su pp or ts the fi nd ingthat th ere was no e vid e nc e that F ir st T e nn e sse e fa ile d to proper ly cre dit Ms. R eed’ s pay

ment s o r fa i l ed to prope rly maintain Ms. Reed’s loan a ccount, a nd Ms. Reed fa iled to produce any evidenc e to support any

other c onclusion.

Ms. Reed also ar g ues th at t h e t rial cour t erre d when it g rante d First Te nnessee permission to initi ate fore closure proce eding s ag ainst Ms. Re ed. For eclosure proce eding s may be initiated af

ter a par ty h as defa

ulted on a mortg ag e loan. See T. C.A . § 47 -9 -6 01 . H e re , th e e vid e nc e c le arl y indicates that Ms. Reed w as in defa ult. Ms. R eed a dmitted in both t he hea ring of the Spec ial Master and the c hance ry

court he aringthat she had missed pa y ments, made pa

rtial pay ments, and had ma de late pay ments. I n fac t, Ms. Reed admitted that she had not made a single pay

ment on her loa

n for
over a y ear

. The recor d clea

rly supports the t rial court’s finding s that Ms. Reed was in de fault and that First Te nnessee could initiate fore closure pr ocee dings a g ainst Ms. Reed.

F ina lly , M s. Re e d a

rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

wa s b ia se d a g a ins t he r a nd fai le d to a dmi t
e vid e nc e tha

t sh e pr e se nte d. Ms. Re e d a rgue s th a t th e Spe c ia l Ma ste r d id n ot a llo w h e r t o s ub mit evid en ce an d prese nt her c ase a nd that the Special Ma ster wa s delay ed in filing her Repor t of the Special Master

. Fu rt h er , Ms. Reed ar g ues that the orig inal chanc ellor assig ned to her case , Chance llor Goldin, w as biased beca use he ruled ag ainst Ms. Reed on a number of ruling s. Ag ain, we f ind Ms. Reed’s ar g uments to be without merit. There are repe ated inst ance s in the t ransc ript of the hea ring befor e the Spec ial Master in whic h Ms. Re ed was g iven multipl e opportunities to present any evidenc e supporting her arguments. We find no evidenc e that the Spec ial Master a cted with any bias or pre

judice ag ainst Ms. Ree d in a ny manner

. Fur

ther, there is no evidence in the rec ord that Chance llor Golden ac ted with any bias in making initial ruling s in this matter. Ms. Reed’s a rg ument that th e ru lin g s w e re no t in he r f a vo r i s si mpl y

no t e no ug h to e sta

bli shbia s.

IV. Conclusion

The c hance ry

court’s or der a dopting the Re port of the Spec ial Master is fully supported by the e v id e n c e in th is c a s e , an d th e d e c is io n o f th e tr ia l c o u rt is a f f ir me d

. Co s ts o f this appeal a re a s s e s s e d a g a i n s tt h e A p p e l l an t , S a m an t h a D

. R e e d , an d

h e r s u r e t y.

__________________________________________ W. FR ANK CR AW FOR D, P RES I DI NG JUDG E, W.S.