WPC z\4!=;.(^UHz8Co\*!^@ 5Kx%طn ,$'JyNo6]Vvͤ( vZ_1/v%=ÜKŰ ;xٴC4 =E{ZlT7vp#j{5ڀoI.[?"OU{p1m;GAT~jߡqq㶐kl5G&[glSR װ0z[a-#򆫰cA3 DVB^7^ 3!y{†Lg{ïQ<=-/eBGaSʲ^t?RAq:VyW^{T sIǜh˒N.6k"J[W~&`#!@UNa % 0)U:  UN wn 4    ^ f^ Z 0Df 0] m ^ N~xU: B2 0nOO 0D AQR 0F 0F^ 0D D3HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(u*$4XXXXX76XXdXXd7  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT,  AZ"Arial Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular{EtpO'3|x  _1AlthoughnotproperlybeforetheTrialCourtasaMotionforSummaryJudgmentasno  StatementofUndisputedMaterialFactswasfiledunderTenn.R.Civ.P.Rule56.03,theChancellorapparentlyconsideredmattersoutsidethepleadings,includingthecontractandaffidavitsfiledbytheparties,inrulingonthemotiontodismiss.Thisproceduralanomalydoesnot,however,materiallyaffectthestandardofreviewonappeal. TTR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT \ [V"X]XXX  _X]XXX]2XX]   Ad FILED 2  October15,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA uS'L ($$  0  (3$ u*!4XX]XXX8JXXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T    0  .U TTR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT n_2(a)Anappealmaybetakenfrom:  Ѐ(1)Anorderdenyinganapplicationtocompelarbitrationmadeunder29-5-303;  Ѐ  ....  Ѐ(b)Theappealshallbetakeninthemannerandtothesameextentasfromordersorjudgments   inacivilaction.,  AZ"Arial Regular d((3`$ u*!4XX]XXX8JXXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T     0  (#$  0  Z[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3V$ u*!4XX]XXX8JXXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  (3V$ u*!4XX]XXX8JXXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ($$   1  (((('dxd u*!4XX]XXX8JXXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  _4XXJXXX]    ..aXXJxY_B2.jz `@E} tt 2  x_fFeINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATKNOXVILLE#XJXa#      `     h %     `     h      p    XXXSAMKNAFFL,0 0 (# (#0h(#(#  ) h(#h(#    `     h   )  Plaintiff/Appellee,   h   )  No.03A019901CH00006      `     h   )vs.   `     h   )  AppealAsofRightFromThe      `     h   )  KNOXCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT   THEDOUGLASCOMPANY, h 0  )|t (#(#    `     h   )  Defendant/Appellant0   h   )  HONORABLESHARONBELLTL (#(#  FortheAppellant:     h      p  FortheAppellee:   RobertH.Green,    h     0 p J.MyersMorton,p(#p(# RobQuillin0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#GeorgeW.Morton,Jr.p(#p(# Kennerly,Montgomery&Finley,P.C.  0   p Morton&Morton,PLLC(#(# Knoxville,Tennessee    h   0   p Knoxville,Tennesseexp(#(# VACATEDANDREMANDED h     0 p      x Swiney,J.#p(#p(#  aXXJ  #XJXaI #aXXJOPINION #XJXa # &" l    ` ThisisanappealfromanOrderoftheChanceryCourtofKnoxCounty,ChancellorSharonBell,denyingdefendant/appellantsmotiontocompelarbitration.Thecauseofactionarosefromadisputebetweenasubcontractor(Plaintiff)andthegeneralcontractor(Defendant)underaresidentialconstructioncontractconcerningadevelopmentinKnoxCounty.Defendant,oneoffivenameddefendants,respondedtoPlaintiffsComplaintwithamotiontoorderthepartiestoarbitration,citinganarbitrationclauseinthecontractatissue,andtodismissorforsummaryjudgment,citingavenueselectionclauseinthesamecontractnamingLucasCounty,Ohioasexclusivevenueforalllitigationbetweentheparties.Followingahearingonthemotions,theChancellorenteredanOrderoverrulingthemotionforarbitration,andsustainingthemotionto 8|15 dismissastothisDefendant.  +#  1      ׀ Subsequently,Plaintiffmovedtoalteroramendjudgmentorfora  newtrial,citingtotheCourtTenn.CodeAnn.6611208.TheChancellorthenenteredanOrder  withdrawingthepreviousOrder,anddenyingbothmotionsofDefendant.Thisappealisproperly   beforetheCourtundertheTrialCourtsRule54.02determinationandunderTenn.CodeAnn.29   5319(a)(1).@ +#  2      ׀ TheOrderoftheTrialCourtdenyingDefendantsmotionforordertoarbitrationis h` vacated,andthiscauseremandedforarbitrationproceedingsunderthesurvivingtermsofthe @8  contractconsistentwiththisOpinionandtheUniformArbitrationAct,Tenn.CodeAnn.295301   etseq.       BACKGROUND   y   ` ThepartiesenteredintoacontractdatedNovember7,1997whereby  Plaintiff/AppelleeSam_Knaffl_,apparentlydoingbusinessas_Knaffl_ԀConstruction,wastoprovide xp certainpaintingservicesassubcontractorforDefendant/AppellantTheDouglasCompany,general PH contractorintheconstructionof_Lanesborough_ԀApartmentsinKnoxCounty.Afterrecordinghis (  _materialman_slien,PlaintifffiledsuitinKnoxCountyChanceryCourtonJune5,1998seeking  paymentforservicesallegedlyperformedunderthecontract,namingaspartiesdefendantnotonly   TheDouglasCompany,butalsotheownerofthepropertyatissue,thetrusteeofrecordofadeed " oftrustontheproperty,andtwoinsurancecompaniesassuretiesonarelatedbondfiledbyThe $  DouglasCompany. `&X"    ` Astheworkandmaterialsallegedasthebasisforthedemandforpaymentsetforth 8(0!$ intheComplaintallegedlyfellshortofthespecificationsofthecontractatissue,adisputearose *#& betweenthepartiesconcerningperformanceunderthecontract.TherecordcontainsanAnsweron +$(  .  TR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT    behalfofTravelersCasualty&SuretyCompanyofAmerica,assuccessortotheinterestsofAetna  Casualty&SuretyCompanyofAmerica,assertingthata BondtoDischargeLienunderTenn.  CodeAnn.6611142relatingtotheprojectatissuewasrecordedApril8,1998.      ` DefendantTheDouglasCompanyfiledonAugust11,1998amotiontodismissor   forsummaryjudgment,andanalternativemotionforordertoarbitration.Bothmotionswereheard h` bytheChancelloronOctober12,1998,andbyOrderenteredNovember13,1998themotionto @8  orderarbitrationwasoverruledandthealternativemotiontodismissorforsummaryjudgmentwas   sustained,withDefendantTheDouglasCompanydismissedfromthecauseofaction,which   continuedastotheotherdefendants.     ` PlaintifffiledamotiontoalteroramendjudgmentorfornewtrialonNovember25,  1998,citingtotheTrialCourtTenn.CodeAnn.6611208asauthorityforinvalidatingthe xp contractsvenueselectionclause.ByOrderenteredDecember1,1998theChancellorwithdrewthe PH November13Order,deniedbothofDefendantsmotions,anddeclaredthejudgmenttobeafinal (  judgmentunderTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureRule54.02.DefendantappealstheChancellors  denialofthemotiontoorderarbitrationtothisCourt.      DISCUSSION  " #   ` Themotiontoorderarbitration,andresultingOrdersoftheTrialCourt,werebased $  upontheinterpretationofthecontractbetweentheparties. Theinterpretationofacontractisa `&X" matteroflawthatrequiresadenovoreviewonappeal._Guiliano_Ԁv._Cleo_,Inc.,995S.W.2d88,95 8(0!$ (Tenn.1999).Likewise,theinterpretationofanarbitrationclauseinacontractisaquestionoflaw. *#& _Rapp_ԀConstr.Co.v.JayRealtyCo.,809S.W.2d490,491(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). +$( #   ` Defendantraisestwoissuesonappeal:(1)whethertheTrialCourtshouldhave -&* severedthevenueprovisionfoundtobeoffensivetoTenn.CodeAnn.6611208andupheldthe /(, remainingprovisionsofthearbitrationclauseinthecontractatissue,and(2)whethertheFederal p1h*. ArbitrationActpre_empts_ԀapplicationofTenn.CodeAnn.6611208.Theissueregardingthe H3@,0 FederalArbitrationActwasneitherarguedattheTrialCourthearingonthemotiontoorder  5.2 arbitration,norassertedinresponsetoPlaintiffsmotiontoalteroramendjudgmentorfornewtrial, 6/4 . TR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT   andthusitiswaivedonappeal.Tenn.R.App.P.Rule36(a).Althoughjudicialnoticeofafederal  statuteisproper,merenoticeofthestatutedoesnotaddressapplicationtothefactsonappeal.  TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedureRule13(c).ApplicabilityoftheFederalArbitrationAct   dependsuponthefactsoftheparticularcase.SincetheAppellantneverraisedtheissueregarding   theFederalArbitrationActattheTrialCourt,andnofactsontheapplicabilityofthatstatutewere h` presentedtotheTrialCourt,therewasnodeterminationofthefactsbytheTrialCourtonthisissue. @8  Thisissueiswaived.   &   ` TheonlyissueproperlyonappealistheactionoftheTrialCourtindenying   Defendantsmotiontoarbitratethedisputebetweentheseparties.Thecontractclauseatissuereads:  .8  8`   22.DISPUTES:(a)Shouldadisputearisebetweentheparties  involvedinthisSubcontract*theContractoratitssolediscretion,  shallbeentitledtorefertoarbitrationorotheralternativemethodsof xp disputeresolution,attheoptionoftheContractor,allclaims,disputes d\ andothermattersinquestionarisingoutof,orrelatingtothe PH Subcontractorthebreachthereof.Arbitrationshallbeconductedin <4 accordancewiththecurrentConstructionIndustryArbitrationRules (  oftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation,unlessthepartiesmutually   agreetotheselectionofanindependentarbitrator.Arbitrationshall  beconductedinToledo,Ohio,unlessadifferentlocationismutually  agreedtobythepartiesinvolvedandtheSubcontractorhereby   expresslywaivesanyandallobjectionitmighthavetothelocation ! oftheArbitrationbeingheldinToledo,Ohio.Theawardrenderedby " theArbitratorshallbefinalandjudgementmaybeentereduponitin # aCourtofCompetentjurisdictioninaccordancewithapplicablelaws $  intheStateofOhio.t%l!` x` x 8  8`   (b)IntheeventofsuitbytheContractororitssuretyagainstthe L'D # Subcontractororitssuretyorthosewithwhomhedealsonbehalfof 8(0!$ thisSubcontract,orsuitbytheSubcontractororitssuretyorthose $)"% withwhomhedealsonbehalfofthisSubcontract,againstthe *#& Contractororitssurety,thevenueofsuchsuitshallbeinLucas *#' County,OhioandtheSubcontractorherebywaivesforitself,its +$( suretyorthosewithwhomhedealsonbehalfofthisSubcontract ,%) whateverrightsitmayhaveintheselectionordeterminationof -&* venue..'+` x` x 8  8`   *Exceptforpersonalinjury0|)-` x` x Itissignificanttonotethattheasteriskwashandwritten,andtheinsertedmaterialseparately \2T+/ typewrittenatthebottomofthepreprintedpage.Thereisanotationsimilarinforminthesection 44,-1 ofthecontractdealingwithpersonalinjuryclaims.Defendantaversthatbothsectionswerethe  6/3 subjectofnegotiationbytheparties,withtheinsertedmaterialrequiredbyPlaintiffinformingthe 705 agreement.  8   ` Themotiontoalteroramendjudgmentorfornewtrialwasbasedontheapplication  ofTenn.CodeAnn.6611208.Thestatutereads:   :    8  8`   (a)Exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b),aprovisioninanycontract,   subcontractorpurchaseorderfortheimprovementofrealpropertyin | t thisstateisvoidandagainstpublicpolicyifitmakesthecontract, h` subcontractorpurchaseordersubjecttothesubstantivelawsof TL  anotherstateormandatesthattheexclusiveforumforanylitigation, @8  arbitrationorotherdisputeresolutionprocessislocatedinanother ,$  state. ` x` x ;  8  8`   (b)Theprohibitionofsubsection(a)shallnotapplytoanycontract,   subcontractorpurchaseorderfortheimprovementofrealproperty   whichislocatedpartiallyinTennesseeandpartiallyinanotherstate  orstates.Venueinadisputeoversuchcontractmaybeinanystate  inwhichpartofthepropertyislocated.` x` x 8  8`   Tenn.CodeAnn.66-11-208,Realestateimprovementcontracts- xp Certainvenueprovisionsprohibited.d\` x` x >>     ` Plaintiffexpendsmucheffortarguingthatthearbitrationclauseisvoidnotonlyto <4 theextentthatitmayoffendTenn.CodeAnn.66-11-208,butalsofor lackofmutuality,inthat   therighttoinvokearbitrationundertheagreementisaunilateralrightofDefendant.Plaintiffargues  thatthereisnoconsiderationtosupporttheagreementtoarbitrate,andthustheclausemustbe ! excludedinitsentirety.Plaintiffisinerror.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtupheldtherulingofthis # Courtthatacontractualobligationtobeboundbythedecisionofthearbitratorissufficient t%l! considerationtosupportanarbitrationagreement._Buraczynski_Ԁv._Eyring_,919S.W.2d314,321n.6 L'D # (Tenn.1996)affirming_Buraczynski_,etal.v._Eyring_,etal.,Nos.03A019402CV00053,03A01 $)"% 9402CV00054(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.30,1994)(whereacontractofadhesionmandatingarbitration *#' astoallcontroversiesbetweenaphysicianandpatientwasfoundtobebinding,asthearbitration ,%) procedurespecifiedbytheagreementsgavenounfairadvantagetothephysician).Suchagreement .'+ byDefendanttobeboundbythedecisionofthearbitratoriscontainedinthecontractatissue, 0|)- providingsufficientconsiderationtosupporttheinvocationoftheagreementtoarbitrate.Equally \2T+/ asimportantisthefactthatthearbitrationprovisionwasonlyoneofmanyprovisionscontainedin 44,-1 thecontract.Thecontractwasnotsolelyanagreementtoarbitrate.Thearbitrationprovisionwas  6/3 oneofnumerousandseparateprovisionsinthecontract.ApparentlyitisPlaintiffspositionthat 705 separateconsiderationmustbeshownforeachparticularprovisiontoacontractratherthan  considerationinthecontractasawhole.Plaintiffspositionisunsupportable,andthecontractin  questiononitsfaceshowssufficientconsiderationtosupporttheagreement.      ` Plaintifffurtherarguestheseveranceclauseofthecontractprovidingthatany   provisionfoundtobeoffensivetothelawsofanyjurisdictionisinsufficienttopreservethe h` agreementtoarbitrate.InaccuratelyquotedbyPlaintiffinhisbrief,theclauseproperlystatesin @8  relevantpart, ...onlythoseprovisionshereofwhichinanywaycontravenethelawsof(any   jurisdiction)shallnotbedeemedapartofthisSubcontract.Theremainingitemsandconditionsof   theSubcontractshallremaininfullforceandeffect.     ` Plaintiffassertsthattheentireagreementtoarbitrate,notjusttheprovisionswhich  mayrunafoulofTenn.CodeAnn.66-11-208,shouldbestrickenfromtheagreement.Plaintiff xp isinerror.Enforcementofacontractclausetoarbitratedisputesisfavoredbylegislativepolicy. PH  TheLegislaturehas,byenactingtheUniformArbitrationAct,embracedalegislativepolicy (  favoringenforcementofsuchagreements._Buraczynski_Ԁv._Eyring_,919S.W.2d318319. Itisthe  responsibilityofthecourtstogiveasbroadaconstructiontoanarbitrationagreementasthewords   andintentionsoftheparties,drawnfromtheirexpressions,willwarrant,andtoresolveanydoubts " infavorofarbitration._Wachtel_Ԁv._Shoney_s,Inc.,830S.W.2d905,908(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). $  Therefore,itistheresponsibilityofthisCourttointerprettheagreementofthepartiestoarbitrate `&X"  allclaims,disputesandothermattersinquestionbyresolvinganydoubtinfavorofarbitration. 8(0!$ Thewordsandexpressionsoftheparties,supportedbytheindicationthattheclausewasthesubject *#& ofnegotiationandamendmentbytheparties,requiresthefindingthatthepartiesagreedtoarbitrate +$( disputesattheoptionofDefendant.Theinterpretationofthearbitrationprovisionthatwillbestgive -&* effecttothepartiesagreementwhilestillcomplyingwith_Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.6611208istorequire /(, thepartiestoarbitratebuttodeletethevenueprovisionofthecontractrequiringarbitrationtobein p1h*. theStateofOhio.PursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.66-11-208,referencesinparagraph22ofthe H3@,0 contract,thearbitrationclause,asto Toledo,Ohio, StateofOhio,and LucasCounty,Ohioare  5.2 strickenasvoid. 6/4 @   ` TheTrialCourtsorderdenyingDefendantsMotionToOrderArbitrationisvacated,  buttheprovisionmandatingarbitrationbeconductedinToledo,Ohioisstrickenasvoidunder  TennesseeLaw.   _V   CONCLUSION    W   `     h        ` TheOrderoftheTrialCourtdenyingDefendantsmotionforordertoarbitrationis h` vacatedandthecauseremandedforfurtherproceedingsundertheagreementofthepartiesandthe @8  UniformArbitrationAct,Tenn.CodeAnn.295301etseq.,consistentwiththisOpinion.Costs   onappealareadjudgedagainsttheAppellee.   AX     `     h      p ______________________________ d\    `     h      p D.MICHAELSWINEY,J. PH CONCUR:   ______________________________ t%l! HOUSTONM.GODDARD,_P.J._ `&X" ______________________________ +$( HERSCHELP.FRANKS,J. ,%)