ÿWPCc 0# °UD» %ÿ 0( 0”-4ÁÕäw@ì 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0H 1uØ 0dM 0@± D3ñ B)$ DCM AM U*Ý B $ v~' AQ¥ Æö 0D¼ 0D D/D BsvÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóäzz!3|xÐ º»E¼½¾E¿KeÀÁÓ€ÍÐ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd* #Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌGATES,€DUNCAN€AND€VANCAMPà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€102071„3ÌCO.,€a€Partnershipà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9605„CH„00095Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àPlaintiff,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€D.€J.€Alissandratos̜ـ*ÙßR€$'#A1-j|dø—` Å `€€@ÿRß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌRICHARD€W.€LEVATINO,ÌÌà àDefendant/Cross€Plaintiff,ÌÌv.ÌÌGATES,€DUNCAN€AND€VANCAMP€ÌCO.,€a€Tennessee€Partnership;ÌÌà àCross€Defendant,€€€and€ÌÌLOUIS€ð ðRICKðð€CHAFFIN€and€GLEN€R.ÌPAGE,€Individually€and€as€partners€of€ÌGDVC€CompanyÌÌà àThird„Party€Defendants.€ÌÌWILLIAM€H.€HALTOM,€JR.,€Thomason,€Hendrix,€Harvey,€Johnson€&€Mitchell,ÏMemphis,€Attorney€for€Plaintiff/Cross„Defendant/Third„Party€Defendants.ÌÌSTANLEY€J.€KLINE,€Memphis,€Attorney€for€Defendant/Cross€PlaintiffÌÌòòò òAFFIRMEDó óóóÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà àGates,€Duncan€and€Vancamp,€a€Tennessee€partnership€(hereafterÏð ðPlaintiffðð)€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€against€oneÏof€its€partners,€Richard€W.€Levantino€(hereafter€ð ðLevatinoðð€orÏð ðDefendantðð),€seeking€injunctive€relief,€an€accounting,€compensatory€andÏpunitive€damages,€termination€of€the€partnership,€attorney€fees€andÏexpenses€and€other€relief€in€connection€with€plaintiffððs€attempt€to€protectÏthe€assets€of€the€partnership.€€Subsequently€the€chancellor,€at€the€requestÏof€both€parties,€entertained€a€motion€for€a€declaratory€judgment,€whichÏwas€ultimately€resolved€in€favor€of€plaintiff.€€Thereafter€the€chancellorÏreferred€other€pending€matters€to€a€Special€Master,€whose€report€to€theÏchancellor€was€affirmed€by€him.€€In€addition,€the€chancellor€awardedÏcompensatory€and€punitive€damages,€along€with€attorney€fees€to€plaintiff.Ìà àOn€appeal€defendant€has€raised€some€thirty„three€issues,€which€weÏbelieve€are€better€stated€by€plaintiff€in€its€brief.€€They€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(1)€The€chancellor€erred€in€rendering€declaratory€judgment€inÏfavor€of€plaintiffÌÌà8 à(2)€The€chancellor€erred€in€overruling€defendantððs€affirmativeÏdefenses€to€the€partnership€agreement.ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€chancellor€erred€in€referring€certain€matters€to€theÏSpecial€Master€rather€than€retaining€them€himself.ÌÑ7€ý,XXdðXXdð7ÑÌà8 à(4)€The€chancellor€erred€in€denying€defendantððs€motion€forÏadditional€compensation.ÌÌà8 à(5)€The€chancellor€erred€in€holding€that€commissions€onÏrenewal€insurance€produced€by€him€properly€belonged€to€theÏpartnership.ÌÌà8 à(6)€The€chancellor€erred€in€dissolving€the€partnership€basedÏupon€the€wrongful€conduct€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 à(7)€The€chancellor€erred€in€ordering€certain€funds€to€be€placedÏin€an€escrow€account€pending€determination€of€the€rightfulÏowner€thereof.ÌÌà8 à(8)€The€chancellor€erred€in€awarding€attorney€fees€andÏexpenses€to€plaintiff.ÌÌà8 à(9)€The€chancellor€erred€in€awarding€punitive€damages€toÏplaintiff.ÌÌÌÓÓFor€the€reasons€hereafter€stated,€we€resolve€each€of€these€issues€in€favorÏof€plaintiff.Ìà àMany€of€the€basic€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€Plaintiff€was€aÏpartnership€formed€for€the€purpose€of€selling€insurance€and€insurance„related€business€products€in€Memphis.€€In€March,€1988,€defendant,€alongÏwith€Carl€J.€Gates,€Louis€J.€ð ðRickðð€Chaffin,€and€Glen€R.€Page€entered€into€aÏpartnership€agreement€to€carry€out€this€insurance€business€under€theÏpartnership€name€ð ðGates,€Duncan€&€Vancampðð€(ð ðGDVCðð).€€Both€partiesÏagree€that€the€partnership€agreement€was€in€full€force€and€effect€fromÍMarch€1,€1988€to€October€15,€1992,€when€the€partnership€was€dissolved€byÏorder€of€the€chancellor.€€Articles€IV€and€V€are€particularly€relevant€to€thisÏlitigation.ÌÓÓÌà8 àò òArticle€IV:ó ó€It€is€agreed€and€understood€that€the€right€to€sellÏto,€or€deal€with,€any€of€the€present€clientele€of€theÏpartnership...belongs€to€the€partnership€and€that€each€partnerÏwaives€any€right€he€may€have€claimed€as€to€the€ownership€orÏas€to€the€right€to€sell€to€or€deal€with€any€of€the€partnershipððsÏpresent€or€future€clientele€except€as€hereinafter€provided€uponÏdissolution.ÌÌà8 àò òArticle€V:ó ó€Each€partner€shall€give€to€the€partnership€hisÏentire€time€and€consideration€and€shall€not€engage€in€any€otherÏbusiness€that€would€in€any€way€work€to€the€disadvantage€ofÏthe€partnership€or€its€purposes.€€This€shall€not€prohibit€anyÏpartner€from€making€outside€investments€as€long€as€the€timeÏand€effort€devoted€to€such€investments€does€not€become€soÏgreat€as€to€detract€from€his€effectiveness€as€a€partner€of€thisÏfirm....ÌÌÌÓÓà àFollowing€the€execution€of€the€partnership€agreement,€all€theÏpartners€executed€assignments,€by€which€all€commissions€and€fees€fromÏtheir€former€clients€were€assigned€to€the€new€partnership.€€Subsequently,Ïone€of€the€partners€discovered€some€evidence€that€indicated€that€LevatinoÏwas€conducting€an€outside€insurance€business€in€violation€of€theÏpartnership€agreement.€€However,€when€confronted,€Levatino€denied€suchÏconduct.€€Upon€further€investigation,€some€of€the€partners€uncovered€moreÍevidence€and€again€confronted€Levatino,€who€this€time€admitted€engagingÏin€insurance„related€business€outside€the€scope€of€the€partnership.€€ThisÏsuit€followed.Ìà àIn€addition€to€the€relief€sought€by€plaintiff,€Levatino€in€a€cross„complaint€sought€to€have€himself€restored€as€an€active€partner€and€alsoÏsought€a€temporary€restraining€order€that€would€prevent€the€otherÏpartners€from€interfering€with€his€participation€in€the€partnership.€€Ìà àFollowing€a€hearing€the€chancellor€entered€an€order€dissolving€theÏpartnership€as€of€October€15,€1992.€€In€addition€he€entered€a€temporaryÏrestraining€order€against€Levatino,€requiring€him€to€conduct€all€insurance„related€business€through€the€partnership.€€The€order€did€permit€him€toÏpursue€any€insurance€clients€with€whom€he€had€not€dealt€while€a€partnerÏin€GDVC.€€The€chancellor€referred€several€issues€to€the€Master,€for€a€fullÏaccounting€of€all€claims€raised€by€the€parties€in€the€pleadings,€as€well€asÏan€accounting€of€any€misappropriated€insurance€and€insurance„relatedÏcommissions€by€Levatino€during€the€period€the€partnership€agreement€wasÏin€effect.Ìà àThereafter,€at€the€request€of€both€parties,€the€chancellor€held€aÏhearing€for€declaratory€judgment€to€ascertain€the€intent€and€meaning€ofÏthe€partnership€agreement.€€At€the€conclusion€of€that€hearing€theÍchancellor€entered€an€order€in€favor€of€plaintiff,€specifically€finding€thatÏunder€the€clear€and€unambiguous€language€of€the€partnership€agreement,ÏLevatino€was€prohibited€from€conducting€any€insurance€or€insurance„related€business€outside€the€partnership€agency€during€the€period€fromÏMarch€1,€1988€through€October€15,€1992.€€The€court€further€ruled€that€anyÏand€all€commissions€and€funds€received€by€Levatino€€during€the€time€theÏpartnership€was€in€effect€should€be€paid€over€to€plaintiff.€€The€chancellorÏreferred€this€issue€to€the€Special€Master€for€an€accounting€to€ascertainÏthe€extent€of€insurance€and/or€insurance„related€business€Levatino€hadÏconducted€outside€the€partnership€during€the€partnership€period,€as€wellÏas€an€accounting€by€Levatino€of€what€disposition€had€been€made€of€thoseÏfunds.€€In€a€subsequent€hearing€the€chancellor€held€that€renewalÏcommissions€received€during€the€life€of€the€partnership€agreement€onÏinsurance€previously€written€by€Levatino€were€the€sole€property€of€GDVC.€€Ìà à€€Levatino€thereafter€filed€a€motion€seeking€compensation€on€theÏground€that€the€court€had€forced€him€to€perform€work€for€the€partnershipÏwithout€being€paid,€stating€that€he€was€entitled€to€an€award€ofÏ$40,000.00.€€This€issue€was€also€referred€to€the€Special€Master.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€several€hearings€the€Special€Master€submitted€hisÏreport€to€the€chancellor€for€his€consideration.€€The€Master€made€theÍfollowing€findings:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(1)€Levatino€was€indebted€to€plaintiff€in€the€amount€ofÏ$88,612.72€for€insurance€business€conducted€outside€theÏpartnership€agency.€€After€deducting€the€value€of€LevatinoððsÏpartnership€interest€from€this€amount,€Levatino€was€indebtedÏto€plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$83,948.72.€€ÌÌà8 à(2)€Levatinoððs€cross„complaint€against€Chaffin€and€Page,€twoÏof€the€partners,€asserting€that€they€had€engaged€in€wrongfulÏconduct€and€thus€breached€the€agreement,€was€withoutÏfoundation.ÌÌà8 à(3)€Levatinoððs€conduct€caused€the€dissolution€of€theÏpartnership,€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðþÿð€61„1„137(6)(3)(B).ÌÌà8 à(4)€Levatino€was€not€entitled€to€any€compensation€fromÏplaintiff€based€upon€the€allegation€that€he€had€been€forced€toÏwork€for€the€partnership.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€chancellor€ratified€and€affirmed€the€report€of€the€SpecialÏMaster.€€In€addition€the€chancellor€held€that€the€evidence€was€clear€andÏconvincing€that€Levatino€acted€willfully,€intentionally€and€deliberately€inÏmisappropriating€funds€that€belonged€to€the€plaintiff,€thereby€constitutingÏintentional€misconduct.€€The€chancellor€awarded€plaintiff€punitiveÏdamages€against€Levatino€in€the€amount€of€$20,000.00.€€The€chancellorÏalso€granted€plaintiffððs€motion€for€attorney€fees€incurred€by€it€for€actionÏtaken€in€the€defense€of€partnership€assets,€and€ordered€Levatino€to€payÍattorney€fees€in€the€amount€of€$43,355.00,€along€with€related€expenses€ofÏ$765.17.€€This€appeal€followed.Ìà@ àò òI.€Declaratory€Judgment€Issue.ó óÌà àIn€entering€a€declaratory€judgment€in€favor€of€plaintiff,€theÏchancellor€held€that€Levatino€was€precluded€from€conducting€anyÏinsurance„related€business€outside€the€partnership€agency€during€the€lifeÏof€the€partnership.Ìà à€It€is€Levatinoððs€contention€that€the€logical€construction€of€theÏlanguage€of€the€partnership€agreement€did€not€require€him€to€conduct€allÏinsurance€or€insurance„related€business€solely€and€exclusively€through€theÏpartnership.€€He€also€contended€that€the€chancellor€was€in€error€in€denyingÏthe€affirmative€defenses€raised€by€him.Ìà àThe€courtððs€interpretation€of€the€partnership€agreement€is€notÏentitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€under€T.R.A.P.€13(d),€inasmuch€asÏthe€interpretation€of€a€contract€involves€a€legal€rather€than€a€factualÏinquiry.€€òòHillsboro€Plaza€Enter.€v.€Moonóó,€860€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€App.Ï1993).€€Our€scope€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àIt€has€long€been€established€in€this€state€that€a€contract€must€beÏinterpreted€and€enforced€according€to€its€clear,€plain€and€unambiguousÏterms.€€òòBob€Pearsall€Motors,€Inc.€v.€Regal€Chrysler„Plymouth,€Inc.óó,€521ÍS.W.2d€578,€580€(Tenn.€1975).€€When€the€language€of€the€contract€isÏunambiguous€and€there€is€no€claim€or€fraud€or€mistake,€the€court€mustÏgive€effect€to€the€intention€of€the€parties€as€expressed€in€the€languageÏused€in€the€contract.€€òòJennings€v.€Hayesóó,€787€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Ìà àMoreover,€the€parties€to€a€contract€cannot€create€an€ambiguityÏwhere€none€exists.€€òòEdwards€v.€Travelers€Indemnity€Co.óó,€300€S.W.2d€615,Ï617„618€(Tenn.€1957).€€Parole€evidence€is€inadmissable€to€contradict€orÏvary€the€terms€of€a€written€contract,€when€the€partiesðð€intentions€areÏreadily€ascertained€from€the€contract€as€reduced€in€writing.€€òòMcQuiddyÏPrinting€Co.€v.€Hirsigóó,€134€S.W.2d€197,€204€(Tenn.€1939).€€The€lawÏconclusively€presumes€that€the€parties€to€a€contract€understood€itsÏobligations,€and€evidence€is€not€admissible€to€show€that€theirÏunderstanding€was€in€fact€otherwise.€€òòId.óó€at€204.Ìà àAfter€reviewing€the€terms€of€the€partnership€agreement€this€courtÏis€convinced€that€the€clear€and€unambiguous€language€therein€indicatedÏthat€all€partners€were€to€devote€their€entire€time€and€resources€to€theÏpromotion€of€the€partnership€and€were€not€to€engage€in€any€other€businessÏthat€would€work€to€the€disadvantage€of€the€partnership.€€The€record€is€alsoÏclear€that€Levatinoððs€actions€were€in€direct€contradiction€with€thisÏagreement.€€In€no€way€does€the€agreement€allow€Levatino€the€freedom€toÍestablish€his€separate€insurance€business€outside€the€partnership€which€inÏeffect€would€compete€with€the€partnership.€€In€so€doing€Levatino€wasÏattempting€to€serve€two€masters,€and€by€so€doing€he€was€totally€wrong.€€Ìà@ àò òII.€Defendantððs€ð ðAffirmative€Defenses.ððó óÌà àThe€contention€by€Levatino€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€denying€theÏvarious€affirmative€defenses€raised€by€him€is€without€merit.€€The€law€isÏwell€established€in€this€state€that€mutual€assent€is€gathered€by€theÏlanguage€of€the€contract€rather€than€the€unexpressed€or€undisclosedÏintentions€of€the€parties.€€òòSee€óóòòSutton€v.€First€National€Bank€of€Crossvilleóó,Ï620€S.W.2d€526,€530€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€Ìà àAs€for€the€affirmative€defenses€of€estoppel,€laches,€waiver€andÏfailure€to€act€with€due€diligence,€the€chancellor€heard€testimony€from€theÏvarious€partnersÌwho€testified€that€when€they€first€suspected€Levatino€of€being€involved€inÏinappropriate€partnership€behavior€and€confronted€him,€he€denied€anyÏinvolvement€in€such€affairs.€€Almost€a€year€later,€when€confronted€again,Ïhe€admitted€engaging€in€insurance„related€business€outside€theÏpartnership.€€Plaintiffððs€suit€was€filed€two€months€later.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.Ìà@ àò òIII.€The€References€to€the€Special€Master.Ìó óà àLevatino€contends€that€the€chancellor€abdicated€his€role€as€trier€ofÏthe€lawsuit€by€ordering€that€the€majority€of€the€issues€now€before€thisÏcourt€were€to€be€determined€by€the€Special€Master.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit€as€well.€€In€òòArcher€v.€Archeróó,€907€S.W.2d€412,€415„16€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995)€this€court€stated€that€the€main€issues€of€a€controversy€and€theÏprinciples€on€which€these€issues€were€to€be€adjudicated€should€beÏdetermined€by€the€court,€and€that€subordinate€and€incidental€issues€andÏthe€determination€of€ancillary€facts€are€matters€properly€to€be€referred€toÏa€Special€Master.Ìà àThe€reference€to€the€Master€was€done€only€after€the€chancellor€hadÏdecided€the€main€issue€in€this€case,€which€was€the€interpretation€of€theÏwritten€partnership€agreement.€€Ìà@ àò òIV.€Compensation€for€Work€Allegedly€Performed.ó óÌà àBy€this€issue€Levatino€contends€that€the€chancellor€was€in€error€inÏfailing€to€award€him€compensation€for€ð ðforced€labor€and€servicesðð,€whichÏhe€contended€was€worth€nearly€$40,000.00€and€that€he€was€required€toÏperform€for€the€plaintiff€by€order€of€court.€€At€the€hearing€before€theÏMaster,€Levatino€failed€to€present€any€proof€of€the€time€worked€on€behalfÏof€plaintiff,€but€rather€contended€that€he€was€automatically€entitled€toÏcertain€commissions€from€insurance„related€business€that€he€had€broughtÍto€the€partnership.€€This€claim€was€dismissed€by€the€Special€MasterÏfollowing€motion€of€plaintiff€and€was€affirmed€by€the€chancellor.€€Not€onlyÏdid€Levatino€fail€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof,€he€failed€to€present€anyÏproof€at€all.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAs€to€all€of€the€above€issues€dealing€with€findings€of€the€Master,€aÏconcurrent€finding€of€a€Master€in€a€trial€court€is€conclusive€on€appeal€onÏthis€court,€except€where€it€is€upon€an€issue€not€properly€to€be€referred,Ïwhere€it€is€based€upon€an€error€of€law€or€mixed€question€of€fact€and€law,Ïor€where€it€is€not€supported€by€any€material€evidence.€€òòCoates€v.ÏThompsonóó,€713€S.W.2d€83,€84€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€None€of€these€exceptionsÏapply€to€the€issues€so€presented€to€this€court.€€Hence€we€hold€that€theseÏconcurrent€findings€are€binding€upon€us.Ìà@ àò òV.€Automatic€Renewal€Premiums.ó óÌà àLevatino€contends€that€the€automatic€renewal€premiums€should€haveÏbeen€paid€directly€to€him€rather€than€being€considered€property€of€theÏpartnership.€€Automatic€renewal€premiums€were€revenues€generated€offÏthe€sales€of€insurance€policies€that€took€place€before€the€formation€of€theÏpartnership€in€March,€1988.€€The€language€of€the€partnership€agreementÏclearly€states€that€upon€the€formation€of€the€partnership,€the€clients€ofÏthe€partners€became€clients€of€the€partnership.€€The€contention€ofÍLevatino€violates€both€the€spirit€and€language€of€the€partnershipÏagreement.€€We€resolve€this€issue€in€favor€of€plaintiff.Ìà@ àò òVI.€Dissolution€of€the€Partnership.ó óÌà àNext,€Levatino€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€hisÏwrongful€conduct€violated€the€partnership€agreement,€thereby€causing€theÏdissolution€of€the€partnership.€€Levatino€also€contests€the€methodÏemployed€by€the€court€in€valuing€the€partnership€and€in€ascertaining€theÏpartnership€damages.€€Following€our€scope€of€review€pursuant€to€T.R.A.P.Ï13(d),€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€finding€of€the€chancellor€that€the€misconduct€of€LevatinoÏcaused€the€dissolution€of€the€partnership.€€Ìà àAs€for€the€valuation€of€Levatinoððs€interest€in€the€partnership€and€theÏdetermination€of€compensatory€damages€due€the€partnership€by€Levatino,Ïonce€again€we€point€out€that€these€results€were€reached€by€the€Master€andÏconcurred€in€by€the€chancellor.€€There€was€no€error€in€law€and€there€wasÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€these€findings.€€Accordingly,€these€issues€areÏresolved€in€favor€of€plaintiff.Ìà@ àò òVII.€€Temporary€Injunction.ó óÌà àBy€this€issue€Levatino€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€inÏissuing€a€temporary€injunction€that€required€that€all€funds€connected€withÍthe€commissions€generated€by€Levatino€during€the€existence€of€theÏpartnership€be€placed€in€an€escrow€account€until€a€proper€determinationÏcould€be€made€of€who€rightfully€owned€such€funds.€€It€appears€withoutÏcontradiction€that€the€purpose€of€this€injunction€was€to€create€a€separateÏaccount€for€the€funds€in€dispute.€€At€the€time€this€was€done,€the€court€hadÏnot€issued€its€declaratory€judgment€ruling.€€It€is€readily€apparent€that€theÏcourt€was€trying€to€protect€the€interests€of€both€parties€by€properlyÏseparating€and€identifying€the€disputed€funds.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìà@ àò òVIII.€Attorney€Fees€and€Expenses.Ìó óà àLevatino€here€asserts€that€the€trial€court€was€in€error€in€awardingÏplaintiff€attorney€fees€and€expenses€in€this€litigation.€€The€law€is€wellÏestablished€in€this€state€that€surviving€partners€are€entitled€to€attorneyÏfees€for€defending€partnership€assets.€€òòBird€v.€Colletteóó,€168€S.W.2d€797,Ï800€(Tenn.€App.€1942);€òòEvans€v.€Boggsóó,€245€S.W.2d€641,€656„657€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1951).Ìà àPlaintiff,€the€partnership€in€this€case,€brought€this€suit€in€anÏattempt€to€preserve€the€assets€of€the€partnership€and€to€prevent€anyÏfurther€diversion€of€funds€from€the€partnership€to€the€personal€use€ofÏLevatino.€€There€was€more€than€adequate€proof€presented€that€the€amountÍof€the€fees€being€requested€were€fair€and€reasonable.€€We€resolve€thisÏissue€in€favor€of€plaintiff.Ìà@ àò òIX.€€Punitive€Damages.ó óÌà àLastly,€Levatino€challenges€the€award€of€punitive€damages€toÏplaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$20,000.00.€€It€has€œbeen›€established€in€thisÏstate€that€a€court€may€award€punitive€damages€if€it€finds€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€that€the€opposing€party€has€engaged€in€intentional€andÏfraudulent€misconduct.€€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€900Ï(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àThe€record€in€this€case€is€replete€with€evidence€presented€byÏplaintiff€that€Levatino€engaged€in€a€deliberate,€willful€and€intentionalÏcourse€of€conduct€in€misappropriating€over€$80,000.00.€€Examples€of€thisÏevidence€include€Levatinoððs€directing€the€payment€of€certain€insuranceÏpremiums€to€his€home€rather€than€to€plaintiffððs€business€address€and€lyingÏto€the€partners€about€the€sequestering€of€assets€of€the€partnership€in€anÏattempt€to€avoid€being€caught.€€Only€after€Levatino€was€presented€withÏoverwhelming€evidence€did€he€admit€to€some€of€the€things€of€which€he€wasÏaccused.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€chancellor€found€Levatinoððs€storyÏunbelievable.€€This€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€decree€of€the€chancellor€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÍCosts€in€this€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Levatino,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.J.€S.W.à àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLILLARD,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì