ÿWPC  _F0³Cl0\a’Â+“ù;þJc±ž;êoߊá6¿À7JncŽÀßðéËûhwðã0w.½©WŒ%¸ô¢P¿Í6jÎy)}³Äáú?£f¾¡qÑL÷[ã;õÕèúâÁvÚbÝËgE§ã%uBè€%̆ަ´+õŠMA}ÿ£Ù:^·ÀÆ¥t¼³ßßÌèXNËc®n?$BAEtÌ-ÞON7ù+0Sk2賿c]>ecd¯‡‹ªó,6÷®Ê'H_;ïY4ìrGÞÄäs.!0v[)¸‰FÏ]·"¼zº?äTÉ‚¸/#OhÐtWl28~ˆÇ‡¤½Ùi¢G.*C9[˹§J'nò‚ÛM§³‹>¾ *½0ÁiÜT|ñee‚€vÉæÎ¤|ä+¢øá¿çMr­~küª0ôšÅa²Ö\×½Y*.š„‘ÞúÀb¶uóâq”'’3É¢Çض“Wu3ç Ü"ª‘˜Át‡/ÇPlµîS;´ÿ¨þ0*# LUNW %¥ 0(«w@Ó4'6> 0”A 0DÕ AQj-m U:š š š š š š š š š š š š š š š š š BÔ Æñ 0D· 0Dû 0D? ? D/ƒ ƒ B² D3Ï ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ rDstuvDwDxyzÓ€„©yË&,,,,,,3|x„ ùÝ ƒ GL$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€legislature€in€1846€had€passed€the€first€legislative€enactment€providing€any€rightÐ ° Ðto€trial€by€jury€in€chancery€court.(D(2GL$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XèPXXXÔÔ€÷DXXèPÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XèPX÷DÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€2,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҼ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼¼¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ-¼äd†XœÔ‘X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€úÑœñ„ññ„ññ„ññzñœñzñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ„ññzññzññ„ñßt€ )>.*jx ` `€€@ELº` 8ttxP„°( tß›ñ„ñMOBILE€LIVING,€INC.,à t àà  à)Ð ° Ðà  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)ÌÓ?¼8d‚X,X¼äd†XœÔ‘X?Óà  àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà  àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9809„CH„00466Ð à0 Ðv.à  àà  à)à  àà  àÐ ð@ Ðà  àà  à)à  àDavidson€ChanceryÐ  P ÐJ.€MICHAEL€TOMLIN€andà  à)à  àNo.€96„1274„IÐ  ` ÐAUBREY€EARL€GREGORY,à  à)Ð  p Ðà  àà  à)Ìà  àDefendants/Appellants.à  à)Ð @  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€œHONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓDAVID€MURRAY€SMYTHEÌ114€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSecond€FloorÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌSTEVE€NORTHÌMARK€NORTHÌ1215€Gallatin€Pike,€SouthÌMadison,€Tennessee€€37115Ìà  àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTñxñSñxñ/APPELLANTñyñSñyñ›ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœÓ  ÓREVERSED€AND€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌÌÌñzñÑúÑÑ7€–_XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑúÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  ÑñzñÌñzñÑúÑÑ7€–_XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑñzñÓ  ÓWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:063× ÐÑúÑÑ7€–_XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑñzñÑúÑÑ7€¦bXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑñzñœÓ  ÓÔ€„›„¼¼¼ÔòòO›€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌà  àÔ€¼¼¼„„›ÔThis€case€is€before€the€court€on€interlocutory€appeal€from€the€ChanceryÐ  p ÐCourt€of€Davidson€County€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€RuleÏ9.ÌÌà  àThe€trial€court€order€granting€the€interlocutory€appeal€presents€a€singleÏissue:€€"1.€€Whether€the€defendant€Gregory's€affirmative€defenses€of€waiver,Ïlaches€and€estoppel,€œabandonment,›€and€breach€of€duty€of€good€faith€and€fairÏdealing€are€matters€of€law€to€be€decided€by€the€court€and€not€material€facts€inÏdispute,€which€would€be€decided€by€the€jury€in€the€case."ÌÌà  àIn€the€same€order€granting€defendant€Gregory's€application€under€Rule€9,Ïthe€trial€court€had€held:€€"...€that€the€affirmative€defenses€of€waiver,€laches€andÏestoppel,€abandonment€and€breach€of€the€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing€areÏlegal€issues€which€are€to€be€decided€by€the€court€and€not€disputed€issues€ofÏmaterial€fact€which€are€to€be€decided€by€the€jury."ÌÌà  àThis€court€entered€an€order€on€September€18,€1998€providing€in€part:Ì"Having€reviewed€both€the€defendants'€application€and€the€plaintiff's€response,Ïwe€concur€with€the€trial€court€that€an€interlocutory€appeal€will€prevent€needless,Ïexpensive€and€protracted€litigation."ÌÌà  àWe€find€that€the€affirmative€defenses€of€waiver,€laches€and€estoppel,Ïabandonment,€and€breach€of€the€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing€presentÏfactual€issues€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€21„1„103€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€ruling€otherwise.ÌÌà  àOn€August€15,€1990,€Michael€Tomlin€executed€a€promissory€note€payableÏto€Sovran€Bank€in€the€principal€amount€of€$64,307.64.€€Defendant,€Aubrey€EarlÏGregory,€was€a€co„signer€of€this€note.€€Sovran€Bank€later€merged€intoÏNationsbank€of€Tennessee,€N.A.Ì̜Рˆ9Ø4A Лà  àAfter€its€balloon€maturity€on€August€15,€1991,€this€note,€along€with€severalÏother€unrelated€matured€notes€held€by€Nationsbank,€was€sold€without€recourse,Ïwarranty€or€any€representation€whatsoever€to€plaintiff,€Mobile€Living,€Inc.€€It€wasÏstipulated€that€plaintiff€is€not€a€holder€in€due€course.€€Process€was€never€servedÏupon€Michael€Tomlin,€the€maker€of€the€note,€and€he€is€no€longer€a€party€to€thisÏcase.€€Service€of€process€on€the€co„signer€defendant,€Aubrey€Gregory,€wasÏœeffected,›€and€in€due€course€he€answered€the€complaint€raising,€among€otherÏdefenses,€the€affirmative€defenses€which€are€the€subject€of€this€interlocutoryÏappeal.ÌÌI.à  àJURY€TRIALS€IN€CHANCERY€COURTÐ  ð Ðà  àSuch€confusion€as€existed€relative€to€the€meaning€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€21„1„103€was€essentially€allayed€by€the€œsupreme›€œcourt›€inÏòòMoore€v.€Mitchellóó,€œ205€Tenn.€591,€329›€S.W.2d€821€œ(1959)›€and€òòSmith€CountyÐ h¸ ÐEduc.€Ass'n€v.€Andersonóó,€676€S.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€1984).€Ð P ÐÌà  àA€good€starting€place€is€òòDoughty€v.€Grillsóó,€œ37€Tenn.€App.€63,€260›€S.W.2dÐ 0€  Ð379€œ(1952),›€where€the€Court€of€Appeals€relying€on€òòHunt€v.€Huntóó,€169€Tenn.€œ1,›€80Ð È" ÐS.W.2d€666€construing€section€10574€of€the€1932€code€(the€mirror€imageÏpredecessor€of€T.C.A.€21„1„103)€held:ÌÓ€Óà8  à...€In€other€words,€as€we€read€the€decision€in€the€Hunt€case,€by€virtueÏof€the€language,€"elsewhere€excepted€by€law€or€by€provisions€of€thisÏCode",€appearing€in€Code€Section€10574,€it€is€meant€to€excludeÏfrom€the€operation€of€that€section€not€only€those€cases€expresslyÏexcluded€by€some€other€provision€of€the€Code,€but€suits€in€whichÏunder€the€common€law€a€litigant€was€not€entitled€to€a€jury€as€aÏmatter€of€right.€€This€means€that€cases€of€purely€equitableÏcognizance€falling€under€the€inherent€jurisdiction€of€the€chanceryÏcourt€are€excepted€because€there€was€no€right€at€common€law€to€aÏjury€trial€in€an€equity€case.€€Marler€v.€Wear,€117€Tenn.€244,€96€S.W.Ï447;€Greene€County€Union€Bank€v.€Miller,€18€Tenn.€App.€239,€75ÏS.W.2d€49.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÓB¼8d‚X¸ ,X¼8d‚X,XBÓà8  àà ¸ àThe€present€suit€being€one€of€that€type,€there€was€neither€aÏconstitutional€right€nor€a€statutory€right€to€a€trial€by€jury;€and€henceÏthe€rules€applicable€in€courts€of€equity,€independent€of€the€statuteÏand€the€constitution,€govern.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àWhere€this€is€the€œcase,›€the€verdict€is€not€binding€on€theÏchancellor,€but€advisory€only.€€The€responsibility€of€deciding€theÏfacts€as€well€as€the€law€is€upon€him.€€He€may€set€€the€verdict€aside,Ïand€order€a€new€trial,€or€disregard€it€entirely,€deciding€the€facts€asÏthough€the€issues€had€not€been€submitted€to€a€jury;€or€he€may€giveÐ Ð9 5< Ðit€such€weight€as€it€merits,€approving€it€in€whole€or€in€part.Ð  ü! ü! МÌ37€Tenn.€App.€81„82,€260›€S.W.2d€œat›€387€(Tenn.€App.€1952).̛̜ÌÓ€Óà  àThis€holding€prompted€the€œsupreme›€œcourt›€seven€years€later€to€revisit€theÏeffect€of€the€statute€as€it€applied€to€cases€of€inherently€equitable€nature.€€InÏoverruling€òòDoughty€v.€Grillsóó,€260€S.W.2d€379€(Tenn.€App.€1952),€the€œsupreme›Ð 0 €  Мcourt›€observed:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àIn€view€of€the€history€of€legislation€in€regard€to€jury€trials€in€theÏChancery€Court€and€because€of€the€construction€in€that€case€putÏupon€the€case€of€òòHunt€v.€Huntóó,€169€Tenn.€1,€80€S.W.2d€666,€coupledÐ €Ð  Ðwith€the€fact€that€certiorari€was€denied€by€the€Supreme€Court,Ïconsiderable€confusion€has€existed€among€the€members€of€the€BarÏas€to€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€inherently€equitable€cases.€€There€isÏalso€an€implication€in€Davis€v.€Mitchell,€27€Tenn.€App.€182,€196,Ï178€S.W.2d€889,€to€the€same€effect.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àWe,€therefore,€deem€it€advisable€to€attempt€to€put€the€matter€atÏrest€...€.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌòòMoore€v.€Mitchellóó,€œ205€Tenn.€591,€595,€329›€S.W.2d€œ821,€822„23›€œ(1959).›Ð ` ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àQuoting€from€7€Vanderbilt€Law€Review€page€402€the€œcourt›€then€observed:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà8¸  ü! ü!à€€€€€While€excepting€from€the€right€to€jury€trial€complicatedÏaccounting,€a€limited€portion€of€chancery's€inherent€equityÏjurisdiction,€the€legislature€failed€to€except€all€other€typesÏof€inherent€equity€jurisdiction.€€If€the€legislature€hadÏintended€that€all€inherently€equitable€causes€in€chanceryÏshould€be€excepted€from€the€right€to€jury€trial€it€could€haveÏexpressly€so€stated€and€set€up€complicated€accounting€asÏan€example€thereof.€€But€the€legislature€evidenced€anÏintention€to€except€only€those€cases€which€involveÏ'complicated€accounting'€and€those€only€'as€to€suchÏaccounting'.€€It€would€appear€incongruous€to€read€into€thisÏlimited€exception€an€intent€to€except€all€inherentlyÏequitable€causes€from€this€statutory€right€to€jury€trial.Ð ¸ X ¸ X  ÐÌœ205€Tenn.€595„6,€329›€S.W.2d€œat›€823.̛̜Ó€ÓÌœà  àOn€January€26,€1970,€the€supreme€court€approved,€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€16„112€through€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€16„¼118,€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€were€then€approved€by€theÏGeneral€Assembly€and€signed€by€the€Governor€to€take€effect€January€1,€1971.ÌÐ H9˜47 Ðà  àChapter€565€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1972€became€effective€on€April€15,Ï1972.€€By€this€act,€the€General€Assembly€sought€to€specifically€repeal€sections€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€deemed€to€be€inconsistent€with€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure.€€Section€1(21)€of€this€Act€provided€for€specific€repeal€of€"...Ïsections€21„1001€through€21„1016€and€section€21„1020,€dealing€with€trials€andÏevidence€in€chancery€court."ÌÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€21„1011€was€a€verbatim€recodificationÏof€section€10574€of€the€Code€of€1932.€€So€it€was€that€after€April€15,€1972,€thereÏexisted€no€statutory€right€to€trial€by€jury€in€purely€equitable€cases.€€The€difficultyÏwas€quick€to€manifest€itself€when€on€October€18,€1973,€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€for€Davidson€County,€sought€by€chancery€proceeding€to€abate€a€publicÏnuisance€and€the€defendant€demanded€a€jury€trial.€€The€supreme€court,€on€JanuaryÏ6,€1975,€issued€its€opinion€in€òòAshe€v.€State€ex€rel.€Shriveróó,€518€S.W.2d€360€(Tenn.Ð h¸ Ð1975).€€The€court€held:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àPrior€to€April€15,€1972€(the€effective€date€of€Chapter€565,ÏSection€1(21),€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1972),€there€was€a€broadÏstatutory€right€of€trial€by€a€jury€in€equity€proceedings€in€this€state.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€21„1011€et€seq.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àThe€statutes€so€providing€were€expressly€repealed€by€the€1972ÏPublic€Act€above€referred€to.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àThere€is€no€question€but€that€prior€to€1972,€the€defendant€in€anÏaction€to€abate€a€public€nuisance€had€a€statutory€right€to€a€jury€trial.€ÏState€ex€rel.€Mynatt€v.€King,€137€Tenn.€17,€191€S.W.€352€(1916).€ÏIn€that€case,€referring€to€the€statute€which€was€subsequently€codifiedÏas€T.C.A.€ðð€21„1011,€the€Court€said:Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà8¸  ü! ü!à€€€€"We€do€not€hold€that€the€customary€option€of€a€jury€trialÏmust€be€accorded€under€this€act€because€of€any€right€underÏthe€common€law.€€That€right€does€not€relate€to€trials€inÏequity€courts."€€137€Tenn.€at€28,€191€S.W.€at€354.Ð ¸ X ¸ X  Ðà8  àà ¸ àIn€view€of€the€repeal€of€the€statute,€we€hold€that€there€is€noÏlonger€a€general€statutory€right€to€trial€by€jury€in€an€action€of€anÏequitable€nature.€€Of€course,€insofar€as€the€chancery€courts€exerciseÏconcurrent€jurisdiction€with€the€circuit€courts€in€law€cases,€or€whereÏthe€chancery€court€is€authorized€to€try€cases€in€which€there€is€aÏconstitutional€or€special€statutory€right€to€a€jury€trial,€a€jury€mayÏproperly€be€demanded.€€The€authority€for€trial€by€jury€in€such€casesÏdoes€not€rest€upon€the€repealed€statute,€but€upon€the€constitutionÏitself€or€upon€special€statutes€governing€particular€kinds€of€cases.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€***ÌÌÐ H9˜49 Ðà8  àà ¸ àThe€Chancellor€correctly€held€that€there€no€longer€exists€aÏgeneral€statutory€right€to€trial€by€jury€in€cases€of€a€purely€equitableÐ  ü! ü! Ðà  ànature.ÌÌòòÓ€ÓAshe€v.€State€ex€rel.€Shriveróó,€518€S.W.2d€360,€361€(Tenn.€1975)€(footnoteÐ ð@ Ðomitted).Ì›Ìà  àThe€General€Assembly€quickly€responded€with€Chapter€436€of€the€PublicÏActs€of€1976€which€was€a€verbatim€reenactment€of€what€had€been€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€21„1011€with€the€reenactment€of€1976€now€codified€asÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€21„1„103.ÌÌà  àSuch€was€the€state€of€the€law€when€òòSmith€County€Educ.€Ass'n€v.€AndersonóóÐ ° Ðcame€before€this€court.€€In€that€case€the€chancellor,€on€January€3,€1983,€held€thatÏthe€jury€verdict€was€advisory€only€because€of€the€inherently€equitable€nature€ofÏthe€relief€sought.€€On€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€the€chancellor€reasoning€thatÏwhile€Chapter€436€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1976€had€reenacted€the€statute€nowÏcodified€as€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€21„1„103,€no€act€of€the€GeneralÏAssembly€had€sought€to€reenact€former€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€œ21„¼1016€which€was€among€the€code€sections€repealed€by€Chapter€565€of€the€PublicÏActs€of€1972.€€This€repealed€section€21„1016€had€provided:€€"The€trial€shall€beÏconducted€like€other€trials€at€law,€the€finding€of€the€jury€having€the€same€forceÏand€effect€and€the€court€having€the€same€power€and€control€over€the€finding,€asÏon€such€trials€at€law."ÌÌà  àThis€court€reasoned€that€without€the€reenactment€of€former€section€21„1016Ïmandating€the€effect€of€a€jury€verdict€in€chancery,€the€law€of€Tennessee€revertedÏas€held€in€òòState€ex€rel.€Webster€v.€Daughertyóó,€530€S.W.2d€81€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˜-è(2 Ð1975)€to€pre„1846€status€and€that€the€verdict€of€the€jury€in€suits€of€a€purelyÏequitable€nature€was€advisory€only€and€not€binding€upon€the€chancellor.׃ ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð È0,6 ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€granted€an€application€to€appeal€in€the€òòSmith€CountyÐ ø3H/: ÐEduc.€Ass'nóó€case€and€issued€its€opinion€on€August€20,€1984,€reversing€the€courtÐ 5à0< Ðof€appeals€and€holding€in€part:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àThe€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€because€the€LegislatureÏfailed€to€enact€the€statutes€describing€the€effect€of€the€jury€verdictÏin€chancery€court,€the€verdict€is€advisory€in€cases€involvingÏequitable€issues.€€The€Court€went€on€to€find€that€the€remediesÏcreated€by€the€Open€Meetings€Act€and€the€EPNA€are€equitableÏrather€than€legal;€accordingly,€the€jury€verdict€provided€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ21„1„103€is€advisory€only.€€We€disagree.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àIn€passing€Chapter€436€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1976,€theÏLegislature€clearly€intended€to€restore€the€law€as€it€existed€prior€toÏthe€enactment€of€our€present€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€SenatorÏOehmig,€the€sponsor€of€the€Senate€bill€which€became€Chapter€436Ïof€the€Public€Acts€of€1976,€made€the€following€remarks€when€theÏbill€was€before€the€Senate€on€its€third€and€final€reading:Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà8¸  ü! ü!àIn€1972€when€we€adopted€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€thereÏwere€certain€code€sections€that€were€repealed€and€this€wasÏone€of€them€and€it€was€felt€that€the€present€rules€do€notÏcover€this€situation€of€jury€trials€in€Chancery€and€òòthisóó€òòjustÐ H˜ Ðputs€back€the€old€law€into€effect.óó€€(Emphasis€added.)ÐX¨¸ X ¸ X  Ðà8  àClearly,€the€Legislature€intended€to€re„establish€the€previous€lawÏand€give€a€broad€right€to€trial€by€jury.€€We€conclude€that€theÏChancellor€was€in€error€in€taking€the€verdict€from€the€jury€andÏdeciding€the€issues€himself.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€Court€ofÏAppeals'€determination€that€the€jury€verdict€was€advisory€only.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌòòSmith€County€Educ.€Ass'n€v.€Andersonóó,€676€S.W.2d€328,€337€(Tenn.€1984).Ð È ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àòòSmith€County€Educ.€Ass'nóó€would€seem€to€have€permanently€settled€theÐ p"À Ðquestion€of€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€chancery€cases€of€a€purely€equitable€nature.€Ïñpñ›ñpñOf€more€compelling€significance€in€this€case,€we€are€dealing€with€affirmativeÏdefenses€of€an€equitable€œñqñnature€rañqññrññqñnñqññrññsñthñsññtñeñtññsñrñsññuñ€than€añuññvññsñ€ñsñ_______________ñvñ›€complaint€asserting€a€purelyÏequitable€claim.€€It€would€be€a€ñpñstranageñpññpñstrangeñpñ€anomaly€if€a€plaintiff,€by€choosing€aÏchancery€forum€rather€than€a€circuit€forum€to€assert€a€common€law€claim€for€theÏñpñcollectinñpññpñcollectionñpñ€of€a€promissory€note€could,€by€choice€of€forum€alone,€bar€theÏdefendant€from€asserting€equitable€defenses€to€a€jury.€€ñpñœñpñIn€this€respectñnñ,ñnñ€ñmñ€butñmññoñ€ñoñit€is€wellÏto€note€òòTCB€Corp.€v.€Gene€Wallóó,€955€S.W.2d€838€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€issuedÐ 0/€*- Ðby€the€Western€Section€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€on€March€7,€1997,€withÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€denied€by€the€supreme€court€on€SeptemberÏ15,€1997.€€In€this€case€plaintiff€sought€recovery€on€personal€guarantees€signed€byÏthe€defendants.€€By€way€of€affirmative€defenses,€defendants€asserted€release,Ïwaiver,€abandonment€and€estoppel.€€In€footnote,€the€Court€of€Appeals€disclosed:€ÏÐ À849 ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àWhile€not€an€issue€in€this€case,€the€chancellor€entered€an€orderÏdenying€the€jury€demand€as€well€as€denying€the€Wall's€request€forÏpermission€to€seek€an€interlocutory€appeal.€€This€court€subsequentlyÏentered€an€order€granting€the€interlocutory€appeal€and€reversed€theÏchancellor's€order€denying€the€Wall's€request€for€a€jury.€Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌ€955€S.W.2d€838,€839€(footnote€2).ÌÓ€ÓÌñwñÌñwñà  àIt€is€further€noted€that€in€the€recent€case€of€òòIngram€v.€Earthmanóó,€issued€byÐ ¸   Ðthis€court€October€21,€1998,€the€issue€of€estoppel€to€rely€on€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€was€tried€by€jury€in€Davidson€County€Chancery.›€€œòòIngram€v.€Earthmanóó,Ð è8  ÐAppeal€No.€01A01„9510„CH„00439,€1998€WL€730192,€perm.€app.€denied€Mar.Ï22,€1999,€reh.€denied€June€7,€1999.€€ÌÌà  àIn€the›€œcase€at€bar,›€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€on€his€affirmativeÏdefenses€of€waiver,€laches,€estoppel,€abandonment€and€breach€of€duty€of€goodÏfaith€and€fair€dealing.€€The€form€in€which€the€issues€of€fact€underlying€theseÏaffirmative€defenses€is€submitted€to€the€jury€is€left€to€the€judgment€of€theÏchancellor.ÌÌà  àAppellant€seeks€to€have€this€court€review€the€actions€of€the€chancellor€inÏtwo€evidentiary€rulings,€first€being€the€authentication€and€ownership€of€theÏoriginal€note€and€secondly€a€ruling€of€the€chancellor€under€Rule€403€of€the€RulesÏof€Evidence€that€the€consideration€paid€by€Mobile€Living,€Inc.€to€Nationsbank€inÏthe€purchase€of€the€note€in€issue€is€not€relevant€and€that€the€probative€value€ofÏsuch€evidence€to€the€defendant€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice€to€the€plaintiff.€€These€issues€are€not€within€the€scope€of€the€RuleÏ9€application€made€by€the€defendant€and€granted€by€both€the€trial€court€and€thisÏcourt.€€We€decline€to€rule€on€such€issues€at€this€time€and€confine€our€rulings€toÏthe€issue€made€under€the€Rule€9€application.ÌÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€the€defendant€a€jury€trial€on€hisÏaffirmative€defenses€of€waiver,€œestoppel€and€laches,›€abandonment,€œand›€breach€ofÏthe€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€This€ruling€is€without€prejudice€to€the€rightsÏof€either€party€to€file€such€further€pre„trial€or€post„trial€motions€as€they€mayÐ À84? Ðchoose.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€œAppellee.›€ÌÓ€ÓñvñœñvñÌÌœÓB¼8d‚X¸ c,X¼8d‚X¸ ,XBÓà  àà ¸ àà c à__________________________________Ìà  àà ¸ àà c àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌÓB¼8d‚X¸ ,X¼8d‚X¸ c,XBÓWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE›Ì