WPC& qa-U܃po.ܰenb UΜ-U79wH&œ&1Dvbժv-r+h֊p9bK*ˌna0? ,0 iKeؚg$V7Vb8?0ߢ>dC 0곃oc[29&fǕDi gd\l'$ͥe]8܉+K-xZu1Re]\;Ҵ&ZS=-}.J>ԪEh,-qg?ϼgHٿ qѣS ]-YP6FsNˠ>Q]fSQ6ؤBTDSdߌۼ9&;;\YuJ;3]jtu*hL |Վ!YwV-=)BWƛjp.a!s| kWiЙ-nb#\ % UN# 0q U/N 0DG  zl  '  h_c)U@{NU: E ^ w 4   m b ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0!!!! B"" 0" D5" D-" 0K#### ASn## 0$ 0D+% Ao%HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   R!f$      1  ҄  _ԀAccordingtoBrooks,B&Hsubsequentlyresoldthepropertyforeighteenthousanddollars. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt  R!f$      2  ҄  _AdefaultjudgmentfortheamountofthedeficiencyjudgmentwasenteredagainstDelkonMarch31,1999.  Heisnotapartytothisappeal.  R!f$      3  ҄  _Apparently,notranscriptofthetrialproceedingsisavailable.Instead,thisCourtwasprovidedwitha  StatementofEvidencepursuanttoRule24oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.SeeRule24(c)TQ҄ENN#҄Qg#.R. x AQ҄PP#҄Q#.P. ^ R!f$      4  ҄  _ԀTheguarantyagreementsignedbyBrooksprovides: TheliabilityoftheUndersignedshallnotbeaffected  orimpairedbyanyofthefollowingactsorthings(whichLenderisexpresslyauthorizedtodo,omitorsufferfromtime x totime,bothbeforeandafterrevocationofthisguaranty,withoutnoticetoorapprovalbytheUndersigned):...(vii)any @ foreclosureorenforcementofanycollateralsecurity...  R!f$      5  ҄  _Rule26.07ofTQ҄ENN#҄Q#.R._CQ҄IV_#҄Q#.P.providesinrelevantpart:Everyrequestfordiscoveryorresponseorobjection  theretomadebyapartyrepresentedbyanattorneyshallbesignedbyatleastoneattorneyofrecordintheattorney's x individualname,whoseaddressshallbestated.Apartywhoisnotrepresentedbyanattorneyshallsigntherequest, @ response,orobjectionandstatetheparty'saddress.Thesignatureoftheattorneyorpartyconstitutesacertificationthat X theattorneyorpartyhasreadtherequest,response,orobjection,andthattothebestofthatperson'sknowledge,   informationandbeliefformedafterareasonableinquiryitis:(1)consistentwiththeserulesandwarrantedbyexisting  laworagoodfaithargumentfortheextension,modificationorreversalofexistinglaw;(2)notinterposedforany `  improperpurpose,suchastoharassortocauseunnecessarydelayorneedlessincreaseinthecostoflitigation;and,(3) ( x notunreasonableorundulyburdensomeorexpensive,giventheneedsofthecase,thediscoveryalreadyhadinthecase,  @ theamountincontroversy,andtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeinthelitigation.Ifarequest,response,orobjection    isnotsigned,itshallbestrickenunlessitissignedpromptlyaftertheomissioniscalledtotheattentionoftheparty    makingtherequest,responseorobjectionandapartyshallnotbeobligatedtotakeanyactionwithrespecttoituntil H   itissigned.(emphasisadded). `  ̀Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(hH  Z(Times New Roman   R!f$      6  ҄  _҄҄ԀTenn.CodeAnn.271122provides: Whenitappearstoanyreviewingcourtthattheappealfromany  courtofrecordwasfrivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thecourtmay,eitheruponmotionofapartyoritsownmotion, x awardjustdamagesagainsttheappellant,whichmayincludebutneednotbelimitedto,costs,interestonthejudgment, @ andexpensesincurredbytheappelleeasaresultoftheappeal.#҄҄~#H0҄,  AZ"Arial Regular} )L L-(\?3|xU- -(|G2!f$ !.8\dd8         0  ҄ d(|3A$ !.8\dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\dd8     _  \8XXdd8  @ \INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#\ #Ԉ ,   MARCH2000Session X XX\ #\XX#B&HINVESTMENTS,INC.v.JAMESW.BROOKSXX\   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMadisonCounty  h @@No.54697;TheHonorableJoeC.Morris,Chancellor  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W199901252COAR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      XXXXThisappealarisesfromadisputeregardingwhetherPlaintiffB&Hwasentitledtoadeficiency  judgmentfollowingaforeclosuresaleofDefendantsproperty.DespiteDefendantBrookscounter  claimoffraudinthesale,thecourtfoundthatPlaintiffwasentitledtoadeficiencyjudgment.  DefendantBrooksmotionfornewtrialorforanamendmentofthefindingsoffactwasdenied. z Brooksappealsthisdenial.#XXXXn##\XXi#XX\ f b Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart B andRemandedinPart  2   #\X#XX.\AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFarmer,J.,andLillard,J., b joined. R JamesBrook,Brownsville,prose 2 JesseH.Ford,III,Jackson,forAppellee   OPINION #\XX#XX\ "! #\XX[ #XX\  XXXX@FactsandProceduralHistory  r$#   InJanuary1997,Defendant_Delk_Ԁ( _Delk_)signedanoteinfavorofB&H.Thenotewasfor J&!% approximatelytwentythousanddollars;themoneywasusedtopurchasepropertyfromBrooks.At 6'"& B&Hsrequest,Brookssignedaguarantytosecurethenote.Atsomepointoverthenextyear,_Delk_ "(r#'  defaultedonthenote.Pursuanttoacontractualpowerofsale,B&Hheldaforeclosuresaleonthe )^$( property.Brooksdidnotreceivenoticeofthesale.Attheforeclosuresale,B&Hpurchasedthe  propertyforsixthousanddollars. #  1           Followingthesale,B&HfiledanactionintheMadisonCountyChanceryCourtseekinga t deficiencyjudgmentforapproximatelyseventeenthousanddollars.Both_Delk_ X #  2      ׀andBrookswere ` nameddefendantsinthisaction.ApreliminaryhearingonthematterwasheldonJuly20,1998. L  Atthishearing,awitnessforB&Htestifiedabouttheexistenceofthenoteandthedeficiency.At 8  thispoint,BrooksfiledacounterclaimagainstB&H,allegingtheforeclosuresalewasfraudulentand $ t theguarantywasnotconstitutional.  `   TrialonboththeoriginalcomplaintandthecounterclaimwasheldonJanuary29,1999.  #  3        8  TheChancellorenteredhisfindingsonFebruary3,holdingthatBrookswasliablefortheamount $  ofthedeficiencyjudgmentasguarantorofthenote.Inaddition,Brookscounterclaimwas   dismissedbecauseBrooksfailedtoputonproofofB&Hsallegedfraudulentconduct.Thereafter,   BrooksfiledaMotionforNewTrialorinthealternativeanAmendmenttotheFindingsofthe   Court.BrooksmotionclaimedthatB&Hactedfraudulentlyinpurchasingthepropertyforsix   thousanddollars,wellbelowitsactualvalue.Brooksalsoassertedthathewasnotallowedtocall p witnessesorcrossexamineB&Hswitnesses.Inaddition,Brooksclaimedthathewasnotallowed \ topresentevidenceregardingtheconstitutionalityofthenoteandguaranty. H   AfinalorderincorporatingthecourtsfindingswasenteredonMarch12,1999.Thetrial  p courtalsodeniedBrooksmotion.Brooksappeals.  \   Onappeal,BrooksassertsthatB&Hwasnotentitledtoadeficiencyjudgmentbecausethe 4 foreclosuresalewasheldwithoutpropernoticeandthepropertywassoldforanamountwellbelow   themarketvalue.Inaddition,Brooksclaimsthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninfailingto   grantBrooksmotionfornewtrial.    B&HassertsthatBrooksappealisafrivolouspursuanttoTenn.Code.Ann.271122and  requestsdamages. l   Analysis D!      Asapreliminarymatter,wefinditnecessarytoaddressBrooksclaimthathewasnot #l! allowedtopresenttestimonyorcrossexamineB&Hswitness.UnfortunatelyforBrooks,thereis $X" notranscriptintherecord,onlyaStatementoftheEvidence.TheStatementofEvidencedoesnot  makereferenceeithertoBrooksattempttopresentnewevidenceortocrossexamine.Inaddition,  Brooksdidnotmakeanofferofproofthatwouldpreserveeithertheexistenceorthecontentofany  excludedevidence.Withouteitherastatementofthesubstanceoftheevidenceoranofferofproof, t theissueastotheproprietyoftheexcludedevidenceisnot_reviewable_Ԁonappeal.Rule103(a)(2) ` _T.R.E._;Rutherfordv.Rutherford,971S.W.2d955,at956(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)citing L  Farmers-PeoplesBankv._Clemmer_,519S.W.2d801,at804(Tenn.1975).Accordingly,Brooks 8  cannotprevailonthisissue.Wenowturntotheremainingissuesonappeal. $ t   A.TheForeclosureSale  8       BrooksassertsB&Hactedfraudulentlyincarryingouttheforeclosuresale.Brooksclaims   thathewasentitledtonoticeofthesalewhichhedidnotreceive.Inaddition,Brooksclaimsthat   B&Hactedimproperlyinpurchasingthepropertyforanamountwellbelowthemarketvalue.Based   uponthefollowing,wefindthatB&Hdidnotactimproperlyorfraudulentlyincarryingoutthe   foreclosuresale. p   Brooksreliesonhisfailuretoreceivenoticeofthesaleandthelowsellingpricetoprove H B&Hsfraudulentintent.However,pursuanttotheguarantoragreement,Brooksexpresslywaived 4 anyrighttonotice.  #  4      ׀Brooksfailedtopresentanyotherevidenceindicatingtheforeclosuresalewas  p illegalorimproper.Whileideally,propertyshouldbringitsfairmarketvalueataforeclosuresale,  \ themereinadequacyofproceedsobtainedasaresultofaforeclosuresalewillnotinvalidatethesale. H  Ifaforeclosuresaleislegallyheld,conductedandconsummated,theremustbesomeevidenceof 4 irregularity,misconduct,fraud,orunfairnessonthepartofthetrusteeorthemortgageethatcaused   orcontributedtoaninadequateprice,foracourtofequitytosetasidethesale.Holtv.Citizens   CentralBank,688S.W.2d414,at416(Tenn.1984).    Whentheproceedsoftheforeclosuresaleequalorexceedthedebtandrelatedcosts,the  proceedsextinguishthemortgagedebt.Accordingly,amortgageewhobidsinthefullamountof l thedebtattheforeclosuresaleacceptsthepropertyitselfinfullpaymentoftheunderlyingdebt, X  whileamortgageewhobidsinlessthanthefullamountofthedebtretainsitsstatusasacreditor D! withregardtothedeficiency.FirstInv.Co.v.AllstateIns.Co.,917S.W.2d229,at231(Tenn.Ct. 0"  App.1994).Inthiscase,B&Hretaineditsstatusascreditorfortheamountnotcoveredbythe #l! foreclosuresaleproceedings. $X"    &"% B.AmountoftheDeficiencyJudgment       Inthealternative,Brooksrequestsareductionintheamountofthedeficiencyjudgmentto  preventawindfalltoB&H.BrooksbasesthisclaimonhisallegationthatB&Hsubsequentlyresold t thepropertyforeighteenthousanddollarsandthattheawardofadeficiencyjudgmentformorethan ` sixteenthousanddollarswouldineffectallowadoublerecoverytoB&H.Brooksassertsthatthe L  resaleofthepropertyreducestheamountofanydeficiencyrecoverablebyB&H.Afterareviewof 8  therecord,wefindthatthisissuecannotbedisposedofwithoutfurtherproceedingsinthecourt $ t below.  `   Itisawellrecognizedprinciplethatacreditor'srighttoadeficiencyisamatteroflegalright  8  uponthecontractfreelyenteredintobytheparties.Thecreditorwillbeallowedtorecoupa $  deficiencyunlessthereisbadfaithorfraudinconnectionwiththeforeclosure._McDill_ԀColumbus   Corp.v.LakesCorp.,No.03A019112CV00445,1992WL115576,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.July1,   1992)citingBrownv._P'Pool_,166S.W.2d633,635(Tenn.1942).However,thecourtdisfavors   deficiencyjudgmentswhenthepartyhasbeenmadewhole,andseeksawindfall.UnionJointStock   LandBankofLouisvillev.KnoxCounty,97S.W.2d842,at846(Tenn.Ct.App.1936) p   Aspreviouslynoted,thisCourtwasprovidedwithonlyaStatementoftheEvidence,nota H fulltranscriptoftheproceedingsbelow.Assuch,ourreviewislimitedtowhatappearsinthe 4 technicalrecordandtheStatementofEvidence.Inthiscase,theStatementofEvidencementions  p Brooksallegation,itdoesnotstatewhetherornotthepropertywasactuallyresold.Thetechnical  \ recorddoes,however,containB&HsunsignedresponsetoBrooksrequestforadmissions.This H responseindicatesthatthepropertywasresoldforeighteenthousanddollars.However,pursuant 4 toRule26.07oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,anunsignedadmissionisstricken.  #  5      ׀     Basedontheforegoing,wefindthatthereisanissueoffactastowhetherornottheproperty  wasactuallyresoldandifso,forwhatamount.Accordingly,thisissueisremandedtothetrialcourt  foradeterminationofthisfact.  Ї #XXXX #XXXX  C.FrivolousAppeal  83   #XXXX3#XXXXWhenanappealhasnobasisinlaworfactitisconsideredfrivolous.SeeIndustrialDev.Bd. | ofCityof_Tullahoma_Ԁv.Hancock,901S.W.2d382,385(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Accordingly, l Appellees shouldnothavetobeartheexpenseandvexationofafrivolousappeal.Davisv.Gulf \  Ins.Group,546S.W.2d583,586(Tenn.1977);Tenn.CodeAnn.271222. #  6      ׀#XXXX3#XXXXԀ#XXXX16#XXXXBasedonthe L  standardabove,B&HassertsthatBrooksappealisfrivolousanddevoidofmeritandrequests L  damagesandattorneysfeesincurredonappeal.SincewefindthatBrooksappealisnotfrivolous, <  weherebydenyB&Hsrequests.#XXXXu6#XXXX , |    Conclusion X    #XXXX7#XXXX  Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmedinpartand 0  remandedinpart.CostsofappealaretaxedonehalftoAppellant,JamesW.Brooks,andone   halftoAppellee,B&HInvestments,Inc.,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.#XXXX8##\XX #XX\     `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE