ÿWPCh …# VUDa %¥ 0(« 0”Ó4g { w@Š Ê 0DÒ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ U,ó 0dU,ƒB)¯DCØ AMU*h B’"¯.Ñv~ÿ D3}vÓ° 0@ƒ AOÃÆ 0DØ D/ BK˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóyJÚ 3|x>    D ! E" # E$ Ó€< = > D(#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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAugust€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€case€was€upon€the€docket€of€four€different€chancellors€by€theÏtime€it€à àcame€up€for€trial.€€It€was€originally€assigned€to€the€HonorableÏGeorge€T.€à àLewis,€Chancellor€of€Part€II,€who€recused€himself€because€ofÏhis€à àà àacquaintance€with€plaintiff.€€Chancellor€Joe€C.€Morris,€ofÏJackson,€was€à àthereafter€designated€as€Special€Chancellor.€€After€theÏHonorable€Floyd€Peete€à àwas€duly€elected€Chancellor€of€Part€II,€the€caseÏwas€transferred€to€him€as€à àthe€presiding€chancellor.€€While€obviouslyÏhandled€properly,€at€some€point€à àprior€to€trial,€Chancellor€Peete€recusedÏhimself€and€Special€Chancellor€à àRussell€Fowler€was€designated€to€tryÏthe€case.€€When,€how,€and€by€whom€à àSpecial€Chancellor€Fowler€wasÏdesignated€is€unknown€as€there€is€no€order€à àin€the€record.€€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`&&&&'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€grXXdìdÈ7Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌBILLY€GWIN€MITCHELL,à àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€œ97623„2›€R.D.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€œ02A01„9503„CH„00060›ÌPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellee,à àà àà à̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€$'#;+'h|v` Å `€€LßV.›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€RussellÏFowler,€Special€Chancellor€€œ›ÌÌSAM€F.€COLE,€JR.,€SubstituteÌTrustee,€ESTATE€OF€PRUDENCE€ÌREYNOLDS,€and€GERALD€W.€ÌPICKENS,€Administrator€CTA,ÌÌDefendants/Counter„Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌJAMES€STEPHEN€œKING€and€ARTHUR€E.€QUINN,›€Bogatin,€Lawson€&€Chiapella,ÏMemphis,€œAttorneys›€for€œPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellee.›ÌÌSAM€F.€COLE,€JR.,€Memphis,€Attorney€for€Defendants/Counter„Plaintiffs/ÏAppellants.ÌÌò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDóóó óÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà àThe€original€plaintiff€in€this€case,€Billy€Gwin€Mitchell€(ð ðplaintiffðð€orÏð ðMitchellðð)€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€seeking€toÏenjoin€the€foreclosure€of€a€deed€of€trust.€€Named€as€defendants€were€SamÍF.€Cole,€Jr.,€Substitute€Trustee€of€the€Estate€of€Prudence€Reynolds,€andÏGerald€W.€Pickens,€Administrator€CTA€(ð ðdefendantsðð€or€by€name).€ÏDefendants€filed€an€answer€and€a€counter„complaint€in€which€theyÏcontended,€among€other€things,€that€the€records€of€Mitchellððs€Chapter€11Ïbankruptcy€case€reflected€Mitchellððs€confirmed€amended€plan€ofÏreorganization€mandated€that€Mitchell€pay€the€mortgage€indebtedness€toÏMs.€Reynolds€in€accordance€with€the€terms€of€the€promissory€note.€€AsÏcounter„plaintiffs,€Cole€and€Pickens€sought€a€money€judgment€for€theÏprincipal€balance€due€and€owing€on€the€note,€plus€accrued€interest€andÏattorneyððs€fees€and€costs.€€At€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof,€the€case€wasÏsubmitted€to€a€jury,€and€after€issues€of€fact€had€been€resolved,€the€specialÏchancellor€entered€a€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Reynolds€estate€in€theÏamount€of€$41,101.64€on€the€promissory€note€and€attorneyððs€fees€in€theÏamount€of€$21,900.00.Ìà àDefendants€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€alleging€five€errors.€€TheÏspecial€chancellor€denied€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€entered€a€finalÏdecree.€€This€appeal€followed.€€ÌÌà àDefendants€have€submitted€six€issues€to€this€court€for€ourÏconsideration.€Counter„plaintiffs€contend€that€the€special€chancellorÍerred:€(1)€in€charging€the€jury€that€a€payment€by€a€third€party€to€a€creditorÏon€behalf€of€the€debtor€was€a€payment€toward€the€debt;€(2)€in€allowingÏwitness€Don€Kelly€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness€when€his€qualificationsÏas€such€were€never€established€at€trial;€(3)€in€allowing€plaintiff€toÏintroduce€an€automobile€insurance€policy€of€a€family€partnership€to€beÏconsidered€as€evidence€of€payment€or€credit€towards€the€mortgageÏindebtedness;€(4)€in€allowing€witness€Mary€Mitchell€to€testify€as€toÏalleged€payments€and€other€credits€on€the€mortgage€debt€made€byÏnonparties;€(5)€in€allowing€plaintiff€to€testify€in€violation€of€the€courtððsÏorder€in€limine;€(6)€in€failing€to€grant€defendants€a€new€trial.€€We€are€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€special€chancellor€did€err,€and€that€a€new€trial€isÏmandated€by€this€record.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€1973,€following€the€death€of€her€brother,€Ham€Mitchell,€aÏprominent€land€€owner€in€Millington,€Prudence€Reynolds€(ð ðdecedentðð)€soldÏher€142€acre€farm€to€plaintiff,€her€nephew.€€In€conjunction€with€the€sale,Ïplaintiff€executed€a€promissory€note€in€the€principal€amount€ofÏ$134,140.71,€payable€to€decedent.€€The€note€was€secured€by€a€first€deed€ofÏtrust€on€the€property.€€The€note€called€for€payment€to€decedent€in€monthlyÏinstallments€of€$1,040.00€for€a€period€of€20€(twenty)€years,€along€withÍinterest€at€the€rate€of€seven€(7%)€percent€per€year.€€The€deed€of€trust€€wasÏduly€recorded€in€the€Registerððs€Office€in€Shelby€County.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àFollowing€the€death€of€his€father,€plaintiff€and€his€two€sisters,€allÏbeneficiaries€of€their€fatherððs€estate,€formed€a€partnership€entitled€ð ðBAMÏPartnership.ðð€€Subsequently,€due€to€the€partnersðð€difficulty€in€payingÏinheritance€taxes€on€their€fatherððs€estate,€both€plaintiff€and€theÏpartnership€filed€for€bankruptcy€under€Chapter€11€of€the€Bankruptcy€CodeÏin€the€United€States€Bankruptcy€Court€for€the€Western€District€ofÏTennessee€in€Memphis.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€filed€an€amended€plan€of€reorganization€in€his€Chapter€11Ïcase€in€1984.€€With€respect€to€the€payment€of€the€debt€to€decedent,€theÏamended€plan€made€the€following€provision:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€secured€claim€of€Mrs.€J.P.€Reynolds€(ð ðReynoldsðð)€shall€beÏfully€settled,€satisfied,€and€discharged€by€paying€to€ReynoldsÏthe€remaining€sums€due€òòin€accordance€with€the€terms€of€herÏPromissory€Note€and€Deed€of€Trustóó;€except€that,€the€terms€ofÏsaid€Note€shall€be€extended€by€a€period€equal€to€the€number€ofÏmonths€that€said€Note€is€in€arrears.€€The€first€installmentÏshall€be€due€and€payable€upon€confirmation€with€a€similarÏpayment€being€due€and€payable€each€month€thereafter€untilÏsaid€Note€shall€have€been€paid€in€full.€€Reynolds€shall€retainÏher€lien€upon€the€Debtorððs€144€acre€farm.Ìà à(emphasis€added)ÌÌÌÓÓShortly€thereafter,€the€bankruptcy€court€entered€an€order€confirmingÏplaintiffððs€amended€plan€of€reorganization.€€During€the€period€from€AprilÏ1985€to€March€1988,€plaintiff€wrote€16€checks€totaling€$26,548.57€toÏdecedent€in€payment€of€this€note.€€In€addition,€plaintiff€sold€8.97€acres€ofÏthe€farm€during€this€time,€from€which€he€paid€decedent€$804.68€of€theÏproceeds.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€January€1988€plaintiff€filed€an€interim€report€in€his€Chapter€11Ïcase.€€In€the€section€entitled€ð ðTotal€Amount€of€Claims€Allowed,ððÏplaintiffððs€report€reflected€that€the€principal€amount€of€the€debt€owed€toÏdecedent€at€that€time€was€$102,902.28.€€This€amount€was€listed€asÏpayment€number€92€of€a€total€of€240€on€the€mortgage€loan€amortizationÏschedule.€€In€his€final€report€filed€in€November€1988,€plaintiff€set€forthÏthe€same€amount€as€the€amount€of€the€debt€at€that€time.€€In€January€1989,Ïthe€bankruptcy€court€entered€a€final€order€closing€plaintiffððs€Chapter€11Ïcase.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àPrudence€Reynolds€died€in€June€1988.€€Although€named€executor€onÏher€will,€€plaintiff€declined€to€serve.€€Gerald€W.€Pickens€was€appointedÏexecutor.€€Some€time€later,€plaintiff€and€Pickens€met€to€discussÍplaintiffsðð€obligations€under€the€note.€€After€the€parties€were€unable€toÏagree€upon€the€amount€owed,€Cole,€as€substitute€trustee€under€the€deed€ofÏtrust,€wrote€plaintiff€advising€him€that€the€entire€balance€of€the€principalÏand€interest€on€the€note€was€then€due€and€payable.€€As€of€that€time,€theÏcalculated€principal€and€accrued€interest€on€the€note€was€$113,832.70,Ïplus€attorneyððs€fees€in€the€amount€of€$17,074.80.€€Plaintiff€was€advisedÏthat€if€the€above€amount€was€not€paid€by€August€1,€1989,€Cole€would€beginÏforeclosure.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€August€24,€1989,€plaintiff€filed€a€petition€for€a€temporaryÏrestraining€order€and€for€a€temporary€and€permanent€injunction€seeking€toÏprohibit€defendants€from€proceeding€with€the€foreclosure.€€PlaintiffÏcontended€that€as€a€result€of€an€oral€agreement€he€had€made€withÏdecedent,€the€value€of€goods€and€services€rendered€to€decedent€by€the€BAMÏpartnership,€as€well€as€cash€payments€made€by€the€partnership€to€theÏdecedent,€were€to€be€credited€against€the€note.€€In€that€regard,€plaintiffÏalleged€that€decedent€had€credited€him€with€over€160€payments€on€theÏnote€prior€to€her€death,€which€reduced€the€balance€due€to€$66,330.18,€andÏthat€he€was€entitled€to€have€the€correct€balance€of€the€note€ascertainedÏbefore€a€foreclosure€sale€could€proceed.€€Shortly€thereafter,€a€consentÍorder€on€the€temporary€injunction€was€entered,€enjoining€defendants€fromÏforeclosing.€€Defendants€then€filed€an€answer€as€well€as€a€counter„complaint.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€the€counter„complaint,€defendants€alleged€that€plaintiff€owed€aÏbalance€on€the€note€of€$102,092.28,€the€stated€principal€loan€balance€thatÏappeared€in€plaintiffððs€bankruptcy€proceeding€in€both€his€interim€reportÏand€the€final€report.€€In€plaintiffððs€answer€to€the€counter„complaint,€heÏalleged€that€the€amount€of€the€balance€due€on€the€note€was€not€as€statedÏabove,€but€that€the€amount€due€as€€alleged€by€defendants€in€their€counter„complaint€was€included€in€error€in€his€bankruptcy€proceedings.€€€€€€à àÌÓÓÌÓÓà àPrior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€granted€defendantsðð€motion€in€limineÏprohibiting€€plaintiff€from€presenting€any€evidence€at€trial€concerning€anyÏoral€statements€made€by€decedent€prior€to€her€death€in€regard€to€the€noteÏand€deed€of€trust.× ƒ( ××  ×€€In€addition,€prior€to€trial€the€chancellor€ordered€thatÍof€the€proposed€factual€issues€presented€by€each€party€to€be€ultimatelyÏsubmitted€to€the€jury,€the€chancellor€ordered€that€plaintiffððs€issue€of€factÏnumber€8€and€defendantsðð€issues€of€fact€numbers€5,€7€and€8€be€submittedÏat€trial€to€the€jury.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€trial,€plaintiff€testified€that€he€and€the€decedent,€his€aunt,€had€aÏvery€close€relationship€and€that€her€motivation€in€selling€him€the€farmÏwas€to€provide€her€with€a€continuous€stream€of€income€for€the€rest€of€herÏlife.€€Although€the€courtððs€order€in€limine€prohibited€plaintiff€fromÏtestifying€as€to€any€oral€statements€made€by€his€aunt€concerning€the€noteÏand€trust€deed€prior€to€her€death,€over€the€repeated€objections€ofÏdefendantsðð€counsel,€plaintiff€was€allowed€to€testify€concerning€theÏvarious€goods€and€services€that€the€BAM€partnership€provided€the€decedentÏduring€her€lifetime.€€Again€over€the€same€objections,€plaintiff€wasÏpermitted€to€testify€that€his€bookkeeper€kept€records€not€only€of€cashÏpayments€made€to€decedent,€but€also€would€make€notations€on€theÏamortization€schedule€of€the€note€of€the€cash€value€of€the€goods€andÏservices€provided€to€decedent€from€time€to€time€through€the€BAMÏPartnership.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àFollowing€the€overruled€objections€by€defendantsðð€counsel,€plaintiffÏwas€permitted€to€testify€that€he€provided€wages€and€lodging€for€theÏgrounds€keeper€of€decedent€at€a€cost€of€$250.00€per€week€for€some€eightÏyears,€totaling€almost€$40,000.00.€€Plaintiff€also€testified€that€throughÏBAM€he€provided€decedent€with€automobiles€over€the€years€as€well€asÏproviding€her€with€insurance€through€BAMððs€fleet€insurance€policy.Ìà àAgain,€over€objections€of€counsel€for€defendants,€certain€BAMÏemployees€were€permitted€to€testify€in€a€manner€supportive€of€plaintiffððsÏearlier€testimony.€€Donald€Kelly,€a€carpenter€and€maintenance€manÏemployed€by€BAM,€testified€that€beginning€in€the€1960's,€he€made€weeklyÏvisits€to€plaintiffððs€home€to€make€both€minor€and€major€repairs,€rangingÏfrom€installing€light€bulbs€to€repairing€the€roof.€€He€was€also€permitted€byÏthe€chancellor,€over€the€objections€of€defendantsðð€counsel,€to€testify€as€anÏexpert€and€give€an€opinion€as€to€the€value€of€the€goods€and€services€heÏsupplied€in€this€endeavor,€without€a€full€examination€of€his€qualificationsÏto€testify€as€an€expert€witness.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIwona€Long,€plaintiffððs€former€personal€secretary,€and€Mary€Mitchell,Ïwho€served€as€bookkeeper€for€plaintiff,€the€BAM€partnership,€HamÏMitchell,€and€the€Ham€Mitchell€estate,€both€testified€as€to€variousÍamounts€of€cash€payments€and€€goods€and€services€supplied€to€decedentÏand€the€notations€they€made€of€same€on€the€loan€amortization€schedule.€ÏMary€Mitchell€testified€that€at€the€end€of€each€year,€at€plaintiffððs€request,Ïshe€would€give€him€a€list€of€all€the€goods€and€services€he€had€providedÏMrs.€Reynolds€that€year.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDefendant€Pickens€was€the€sole€witness€who€testified€on€behalf€ofÏdefendants.€€He€stated€that€at€the€time€of€trial,€based€upon€the€amount€ofÏindebtedness€listed€by€plaintiff€in€his€final€report€in€bankruptcy,€plaintiffÏowed€$102,790.23€as€the€balance€of€the€principal€due€on€the€note,€withÏaccrued€simple€interest€totaling€$44,887.54,€for€a€total€of€$147,677.77.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof,€the€chancellor€instructed€the€juryÏas€to€the€law€that€they€should€consider€and€other€aspects€of€theirÏdeliberations.€€Included€therein€were€three€special€instructions,€the€firstÏtwo€of€which€were€submitted€at€the€request€of€the€defendants€and€agreedÏto€by€plaintiff,€and€the€third€was€a€special€request€made€by€plaintiff,Ïmodified€in€part€and€accepted€by€the€chancellor.€€They€were€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àLadies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€I€further€instruct€youÏthat€the€term€ððres€judicataðð€.€.€.€is€defined€in€the€law€as€aÏmatter€adjudged;€a€thing€judicially€acted€upon€or€decided;€aÏthing€or€matter€settled€by€judgment.€Ìà@ àÌà8 àà àLadies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€I€further€instruct€thatÏthe€confirmation€of€a€plan€of€reorganization€by€a€United€StatesÏBankruptcy€Court€has€the€effect€of€a€judgment€of€a€UnitedÏStates€District€Court,€and€res€judicata€principles€barÏrelitigation€of€any€issues€raised€or€that€could€have€been€raisedÏin€the€confirmation€proceedings.ÌÌà8 àà àLadies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€a€payment€by€a€thirdÏparty€to€a€creditor€on€behalf€of€the€debtor€is€payment€towardsÏthe€debt.€€€€€ÌÌÌà@ àI.€The€Jury€ChargeÌÌÓÓà àWhile€our€Latin€studies€teach€us€that€ð ðall€Gaul€is€divided€into€threeÏparts,ðð€€the€special€jury€instructions€given€by€the€chancellor€above€at€theÏrequest€of€the€parties€should€be€divided€into€two€parts.€€The€two€specialÏjury€instructions€given€by€the€special€chancellor€at€the€behest€of€theÏdefendants€in€essence€told€the€jury€that€the€confirmation€of€a€plan€ofÏreorganization€in€a€U.S.€Bankruptcy€Court€had€the€same€effect€as€aÏjudgment€of€a€U.S.€District€Court,€and€that€res€judicata€would€barÏrelitigation€of€any€issues€that€were€presented€or€could€have€beenÏpresented€in€the€bankruptcy€confirmation€proceedings.€€The€courtÏexplained€to€the€jury€what€ð ðres€judicataðð€meansð"ði.e.,€a€thing€or€matterÏsettled€by€judgment.€€As€we€have€indicated€earlier,€these€two€instructionsÏwere€approved€by€counsel€for€both€parties.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThereafter,€in€virtually€the€same€breath,€the€chancellor€told€the€juryÏthat€ð ða€payment€by€a€third€party€to€a€creditor€on€behalf€of€the€debtor€isÏpayment€towards€the€debt.ðð€€In€simple€language,€this€instruction€said€toÏthe€jury€that€any€payment€by€the€BAM€partnership€to€the€decedent€onÏbehalf€of€plaintiff€Mitchell€constituted€a€payment€towards€Mitchellððs€debtÏto€decedent.€€It€is€this€instruction€about€which€defendants€stronglyÏcomplain€and€which€was€given€over€their€objections.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€effect€of€the€confirmation€of€a€plan€of€reorganization€in€aÏChapter€11€Bankruptcy€case€is€stated€in€11€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1141€(1993),€whichÏreads€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(a)€Except€as€provided€in€subsections€(d)(2)€and€(d)(3)€of€thisÏsection,€the€provisions€of€a€confirmed€plan€bind€the€debtor€.€.€.Ïand€any€creditor€.€.€.€[of]€the€debtor,€whether€or€not€the€claim€orÏinterest€of€such€creditor€.€.€.€is€impaired€under€the€plan€andÏwhether€or€not€such€creditor€.€.€.€has€accepted€the€plan.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€federal€courts€have€consistently€upheld€the€finality€of€a€confirmationÏof€a€bankruptcy.€€òòE.g.,€In€re€Chattanooga€Wholesale€Antiques,€Inc.óó,€930€œF.2d›Ï458,€463€(6th€Cir.€1991).€€The€Sixth€Circuit€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àSection€1141€is€entitled€ð ðEffect€of€confirmation.ðð€ÏSection€1141(a)€lists€categories€of€parties€who€are€bound€byÍthe€terms€of€confirmed€plan.€€The€effect€of€confirmation€underÏthe€plan€language€of€ðð€1141(a)€is€to€bind€all€parties€to€theÏterms€of€a€plan€of€reorganization.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€Confirmation€of€a€plan€of€reorganization€by€theÏbankruptcy€court€has€the€effect€of€a€judgment€by€the€districtÏcourt€and€res€judicata€principles€bar€relitigation€of€any€issuesÏraised€or€that€could€have€been€raised€in€the€confirmationÏproceedings.€ÌÌòòÌÌId.óó€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÓÓÌà àPlaintiffððs€interim€and€final€reports€in€bankruptcy€stated,€underÏoath,€in€part€that€the€principal€amount€of€the€indebtedness€to€PrudenceÏReynolds€was€$102,902.28.€€Plaintiffððs€amended€plan€of€reorganizationÏfurther€stated€that€this€debt€to€decedent€was€to€be€ð ðfully€settled,Ïsatisfied€and€discharged€in€accordance€with€her€Promissory€Note€and€DeedÏof€Trust.ðð€€Plaintiffððs€amended€plan€of€reorganization€was€confirmed€onÏJune€13,€1984,€by€the€Honorable€William€B.€Leffler,€Chief€U.S.€BankruptcyÏJudge.€€Any€credits€that€plaintiff€contended€that€he€was€entitled€to€up€toÏthe€filing€of€his€amended€plan€of€reorganization€should€have€been€and€couldÏhave€been€presented€to€the€bankruptcy€court€for€consideration.€€It€isÏapparent€from€the€lack€of€any€evidence€in€this€case€of€plaintiff€contestingÏthe€amount€owed€that€he€completely€and€totally€failed€to€do€so.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€contended€in€the€trial€court€and€contends€in€this€court€inÏhis€brief€and€oral€argument€that€the€balance€of€the€loan€as€stated€in€hisÏinterim€report€and€final€report€in€his€Chapter€11€case€was€a€ð ðmistake,ððÏarising€from€a€misunderstanding€with€his€attorneys€in€the€bankruptcyÏcase.€€As€a€result€of€this€ð ðmistake,ðð€plaintiff€contends€that€he€is€notÏbound€under€the€statutory€and€case€law€that€we€have€cited€herein€to€thisÏamount.€€This€contention€is€without€merit.€€An€argument€by€the€debtorÏquite€similar€to€this€argument€of€plaintiff€was€rejected€œin€òòIn›€re€Dooleyóó,Ï116€B.R.€573,€578€(Bankr.€S.D.€Ohio€1990).€€In€òòDooleyóó,€the€debtor€challengedÏthe€amount€allowed€of€a€secured€creditorððs€claim€on€the€ground€that€theÏcreditor€did€not€properly€give€credit€to€the€debtorððs€obligation€to€him€onÏvarious€preconfirmation€payments.€€The€court€therein€noted€that€debtorÏhad€the€opportunity€to€challenge€the€amount€of€the€allowed€at€twoÏdifferent€confirmation€hearings,€and€that€the€debtor€submitted€hisÏamended€his€plan€of€reorganization€over€the€creditorððs€objection.€€InÏrejecting€this€contention,€the€bankruptcy€judge€stated€in€part:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àÌà8 àà àThe€lengthy€and€often€vigorously€contested€processÏleading€to€the€confirmation€of€a€debtorððs€proposed€Chapter€11ÏPlan€would€become€meaningless€if€the€order€confirming€aÍdebtorððs€plan€was€not€accorded€preclusive€effect.€€For€thatÏreason,€among€others,€a€specific€provision€was€enacted€inÏChapter€11€to€statutorily€strengthen€the€preclusive€effectÏgranted€to€a€Chapter€11€confirmation€order.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€It€is€impossible€to€ignore€the€inclusion€of€the€wordsÏð ðThe€provisions€of€a€confirmed€plan€bind€the€òòdebtoróóðð€inÏapplying€this€section.€€One€Bankruptcy€Court€noted,€ð ðIt€is€theÏopinion€of€this€court€that€ðð€1141€of€the€Bankruptcy€Code€meansÏwhat€it€says€and€not€only€are€the€creditors€bound€by€theÏconfirmed€plan,€but€the€debtors€are€also€so€bound.ðð€(citationsÏomitted)ÌÌòòÌÌId.óó€at€578„79.ÌÓÓÌÓÓÌÓÓà àTo€give€even€more€finality€to€this€conclusion,€we€cite€òòMiller€v.ÏMeinhard„Commercial€Corp.óó,€462€F.2d€358,€360€(5th€Cir.€1972),€whereinÏthat€court€stated€in€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAn€arrangement€confirmed€by€a€bankruptcy€court€has€theÏeffect€of€a€judgment€rendered€by€a€district€court,€and€anyÏattempt€be€the€parties€or€those€in€privity€with€them€toÏrelitigate€any€of€the€matters€that€were€raised€or€could€haveÏbeen€raised€therein€is€barred€under€the€doctrine€òòres€judicata.óóÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€The€suit€is€no€more€than€a€collateral€attack€upon€theÏrefereeððs€order€confirming€the€plan€of€arrangement;€theÏintegrity€of€the€judgment€is€challenged.€€Even€though€an€actionÏhas€an€independent€purpose€and€contemplates€some€otherÏrelief,€it€is€a€collateral€attack€if€it€must€in€some€fashionÍoverrule€a€previous€judgment.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€òòRes€judicataóó€applies€where€the€subject€matter€is€theÏsame,€ð ðnot€only€to€every€matter€which€was€offered€andÏreceived€to€sustain€or€defeat€the€claim€or€demand,€but€also€asÏto€any€other€admissible€matter€which€might€have€been€offeredÏfor€that€purpose.ðð€ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€360€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€special€chancellor€erred€when€heÏgave€plaintiffððs€special€request€as€modified,€thereby€permitting€the€juryÏto€consider€plaintiffððs€credits€against€the€note€held€by€the€decedent€thatÏwere€clearly€precluded€by€the€bankruptcy€proceedings.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIt€now€becomes€necessary€to€decide€whether€this€erroneous€charge,Ïmore€probably€then€not,€affected€the€judgment€of€the€jury.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b)Ïprovides€that€ð ðA€final€judgment€.€.€.€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,Ïconsidering€the€whole€record,€error€.€.€.€more€probably€than€not€affectedÏthe€judgment.ð ð€€In€reviewing€the€erroneous€charge,€it€is€appropriate€toÏconsider€the€charge€as€a€whole€in€determining€whether€a€prejudicial€errorÏhas€been€committed.€€The€specific€instruction€at€issue€must€be€consideredÏin€light€of€its€context.€€òòGorman€v.€Earhartóó,€876€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.Í1994).€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àViewing€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€erroneous€charge€that€the€juryÏcould€consider€payments€made€by€a€third€party,€BAM,€to€the€creditor,Ïdecedent,€on€behalf€of€the€debtor,€plaintiff€Mitchell,€in€satisfaction€of€theÏdebt,€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€verdict.€€One€of€the€decisiveÏissues€before€the€jury€was€the€amount€that€Mitchell€owed€his€aunt€at€theÏtime€the€suit€was€brought.€€A€substantial€portion€of€plaintiffððs€proofÏfocused€on€the€various€and€sundry€types€of€credits€that€were€reportedlyÏgiven,€or€should€have€been€given,€against€his€note€to€decedent€in€the€formÏof€services€rendered€the€decedent€by€the€BAM€partnership€and€personsÏemployed€by€the€partnership,€as€well€as€other€goods€allegedly€providedÏdecedent€by€plaintiff€as€a€member€of€the€BAM€partnership.€€All€of€thisÏtestimony€was€objected€to€and€was€subject€to€the€defense€of€res€judicataÏas€a€result€of€the€plaintiffððs€confirmed€amended€plan€of€reorganization.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIt€is€apparent€to€this€court,€from€the€record,€that€the€jury€took€intoÏaccount€the€plaintiffððs€testimony€concerning€the€value€of€goods€andÏservices€provided€to€the€decedent€by€the€BAM€partnership.€€While€theÏbankruptcy€proceedings€established€that€the€principal€amount€plaintiffÏowed€the€note€as€of€November€1988€was€€$102,902.28,€the€juryÍdetermined€that€the€balance€due€on€the€note€to€decedent€was€onlyÏ$41,101.64.€€Taking€all€this€into€account,€the€trial€courtððs€charge€moreÏlikely€than€not€influenced€the€jury€in€determining€the€balance€due€on€theÏnote€in€question.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€therefore€must€beÏreversed.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAs€for€the€remaining€evidentiary€issues€of€defendants,€we€find€thatÏeach€and€every€one€of€them€constituted€error€on€behalf€of€the€trial€court.€ÏIn€light€of€the€legal€effect€of€res€judicata€of€the€bankruptcy€courtððs€ordersÏand€judgments,€the€evidence€plaintiff€sought€to€introduce€concerning€theÏvalue€of€goods€and€services€provided€by€the€BAM€partnership€wasÏirrelevant,€immaterial,€and€inadmissable.€€T.R.E.€402.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àUpon€remand,€the€scope€of€the€hearing€should€be€limited€to€the€taskÏof€ascertaining€the€amount€actually€due€and€owing€by€plaintiff€on€theÏsecured€promissory€note,€plus€accrued€interest€and€attorneyððs€fees.€ÏTaking€as€a€beginning€point€the€outstanding€balance€on€the€promissory€noteÏas€stated€in€the€bankruptcy€courtððs€final€order€of€November€1988,€the€trialÏcourt€should€ascertain€the€amount€of€payments,€if€any,€made€by€plaintiffÏfrom€the€time€of€the€final€order€of€bankruptcy€until€the€date€of€trial,€plusÏall€accrued€interest€to€date.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€decree€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€this€causeÏis€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€for€furtherÏproceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€in€this€cause€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€plaintiff,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌà 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 àœLILLARD,›€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœHIGHERS,€J.,€Not€participating›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ›