ÿWPC7 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ 0d U> B)½ DCæ AM)U*v v~± B/vÓL D3 0@R AO’Æá 0D§ D/ë B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-ÄÅEÆÇEÈÉÓ€ÓDÒ žŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨3|xÓ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌDecember€18,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌORLANDO€RESIDENCE,€LTD.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àNo.€€92„3086„IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌNASHVILLE€LODGING€COMPANY,à à)à àAppeal€No.ÌNASHVILLE€RESIDENCE€CORP.,à à)à à01„A„01„9606„CH„00256̜ـ€ÙßR€!# A1-j|ÖX` ç `€€@ÿRß›and€KENNETH€E.€NELSON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMETRIC€PARTNERS€GROWTHà àà à)ÌSUITE€INVESTORS,€L.P.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Cross€Plaintiff/Appellee.)à àÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌó óÌÌBOULT,€CUMMINGS,€CONNERS€&€BERRYÌEugene€N.€Bulso,€Jr.€#12005Ì1600€Nations€Bank€BuildingÌ414€Union€Street,€Box€198062ÌNashville,€TN€37219„8062ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌBASS,€BERRY€&€SIMSÌSamuel€L.€Felker,€#9045ÌJoseph€F.€Welborn,€III,€#15076Ì2700€First€American€CenterÌNashville,€TN€37238„2700ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌSTEWART,€ESTES€&€DONNELLÌAlan€T.€Fister,€#10952Ì1400€Third€National€Financial€CenterÌ424€Church€StreetÌNashville,€TN€37219ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌò òÓ  ÓREVERSED,€VACATED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌò òORLANDO€RESIDENCE,€LTD.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àNo.€€92„3086„IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌNASHVILLE€LODGING€COMPANY,à à)à àAppeal€No.ÌNASHVILLE€RESIDENCE€CORP.,à à)à à01„A„01„9606„CH„00256Ìand€KENNETH€E.€NELSON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMETRIC€PARTNERS€GROWTHà àà à)ÌSUITE€INVESTORS,€L.P.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Cross€Plaintiff/Appellee.)à àÌÓÓÌÌà@ àòòÔ€¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔóóÌÓÓÓÓó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€captioned€appellants€have€appealed€from€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÏinvalidating€a€real€estate€conveyance€as€fraudulent,€awarding€plaintiff€compensatory€andÏpunitive€damages,€and€awarding€the€captioned€cross€claimant€indemnity€from€appellants.ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àThe€origins€of€the€controversy€begin€in€1981,€when€Samuel€A.€Hardige€hired€KennethÏNelson€to€head€a€corporation€owned€by€Hardige.€€Soon€afterward,€Nelson€was€terminated;€andÏconsiderable€litigation€ensued€between€Nelson€and€various€enterprises€of€Hardige.€€As€a€part€ofÏthe€settlement€of€that€litigation€certain€properties€were€vested€in€a€corporation€designated€in€theÍrecord€as€Nashville€Residence€Corporation,€or€NRC€83€of€which€Nelson€was€principal€stockÏholder.€€Included€in€the€properties€vested€in€NRC€83€was€land€at€2300€Elm€Hill€Pike€occupiedÏby€a€hotel€known€as€the€Nashville€Residence€Inn.€€Also€as€part€of€the€settlement,€certainÏproperty€was€vested€in€Orlando€Residence,€Ltd.,€(ORL)€which€was€a€limited€partnership€ofÏwhich€Hardige€was€the€general€partner.€€Also,€as€part€of€the€settlement,€NRC€83€and€twoÏsureties€executed€a€note€payable€to€ORL€in€the€amount€of€$250,000,€due€on€October€31,€1986.€ÏOn€December€16,€1986,€ORL€sued€NRC€83€in€Federal€Court€for€non„payment€of€the€note.ÌÌà àSix€days€later,€on€December€22,€1986,€NRC€83€executed€and,€on€December€29,€1986,Ïdelivered€a€quitclaim€deed€to€Nashville€Lodging€Company€(NLC)€conveying€the€interest€ofÏNRC€83€in€property€known€as€Nashville€Residence€Inn.€€NLC€was€a€limited€partnership€ofÏwhich€the€general€partner€was€a€corporation€also€named€Nashville€Residence€Corporation€andÏidentified€in€the€record€as€ð ðNRC€86"€to€distinguish€it€from€NRC€83.€€Nelson€and€the€suretiesÏon€the€$250,000€note€were€limited€partners.ÌÌà àOn€April€24,€1989,€NLC€conveyed€the€Nashville€Residence€Inn€property€to€MetricÏPartners€Growth€Suite€Investors,€LP.€(hereafter€ð ðMetricðð).ÌÌà àOn€March€21,€1990,€judgment€was€entered€in€Federal€Court€in€favor€of€ORL€andÏagainst€NRC€83€and€the€two€sureties€for€the€$250,000€principal€and€interest€due€on€the€aboveÏmentioned€note.Ìòòò òÓ  Óà àThe€Present€Suit:ó óóóÌÓ  Óà àOn€October€16,€1992,€ORL€filed€the€present€suit€against€NLC,€NRC€86,€Nelson€andÏMetric€alleging€that€the€December€26,€1986€quitclaim€deed€from€NRC€83€to€NLC€was€aÍfraudulent€transfer€undertaken€to€avoid€payment€of€indebtedness€due€ORL€83,€praying€forÏinvalidation€of€the€deed€and€ð ðsuch€other€relief€as€may€be€just€and€reasonable.ððÌÌà àThe€ensuing€litigation€is€a€labyrinth€of€procedures€the€record€of€which€fills€three€largeÏstorage€boxes.€€The€technical€record€consists€of€14€volumes€of€1,778€pages€and€the€evidentiaryÏrecord€consists€of€16€volumes€of€1,485€pages€plus€countless€exhibits.€€ÌÌà àThe€highlights€of€the€procedure€are:€ÌÌà àOctober€16,€1992€„€Complaint.ÌÌà àNovember€24,€1992€„€Answers€of€NLC€and€NRC€86.ÌÌà àDecember€11,€1992,€answer€and€crossclaim€of€Metric€seeking€exoneration€from€NRCÏ86€and€NLC.€€Ìà àJanuary€7,€1993,€answer€of€Nelson.ÌÌà àDecember€7,€1993,€order€requiring€completion€of€discovery€by€June€15,€1994,€motionsÏfor€summary€judgment€by€June€30,€1994,€and€trial€on€August€22,€1994.ÌÌà àApril€7,€1993,€answer€of€NRC€86€and€NLC€to€cross€claim.ÌÌà àMay€18,€1994,€motion€of€plaintiff€for€partial€summary€judgment€that€the€December€26,Ï1986,€deed€was€fraudulent€and€void.ÌÌà àMay€24,€1994,€Motion€of€NLC,€NRC€86€and€Nelson€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àAugust€9,€1994,€Motion€of€NLC,€NRC€86€and€Nelson€for€summary€judgmentÏoverruled;€Ìjudgment€against€NLC,€and€NRC€86€for€$501,934.53€compensatory€damages.€ÌÌà àAugust€21,€1995,€trial€before€a€jury€on€issue€of€whether€NLC,€NRC€86€and€NelsonÏintended€to€defraud,€jury€verdict€yes,€and€punitive€damages€awarded.ÌÌà àAugust€24,€1995,€jury€verdict€for€$850,000€punitive€damages.ÌÌà àSeptember€5,€1995,€judgment€for€$501,934€compensatory€and€$850,000€punitiveÏà àdamages.ÌÌà àOctober€1,€1995,€order€approving€punitive€damages.ÌÌà àThe€appellants€present€seven€issues€for€review.€€The€first€issue€questions€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€Trial€Court€over€the€subject€matter.€€Subject€matter€jurisdiction€relates€to€theÏpower€of€the€Court€to€act€upon€the€subject€matter€of€the€litigation.ÌÌà àNo€question€is€made€as€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Trial€Court€to€entertain€and€decide€aÏsuit€of€this€character.€€Appellantsðð€challenge€is€to€the€standing€of€the€plaintiff€to€prosecute€thisÏparticular€suit.€€Standing€is€not€a€matter€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€but€of€the€eligibility€œof€aÍparty€to›€seek€the€relief€requested.€€Standing€is€a€judge„made€doctrine€used€to€refuse€toÏdetermine€the€merits€of€a€controversy€regardless€of€its€merits€where€the€prosecuting€party€is€notÏproperly€situated€to€prosecute€the€action.€€òòKnierim€v.€Leatherwoodóó,€Tenn.€1976,€542€S.W.2dÏ806,€808;€òòCurve€Elementary€School€Parent€and€Teacherððs€Organization€v.€Lauderdale€CountyÏSchool€Boardóó,€Tenn.€App.€1980,€608€S.W.2d€855.€€The€question€of€standing€is€whether€theÏplaintiff€has€such€a€personal€stake€in€the€outcome€of€the€case€as€to€warrant€its€invocation€of€theÏcountððs€jurisdiction€and€to€justify€the€exercise€of€the€Courtððs€powers€on€its€behalf.€ÏòòMetropolitan€Air€Research€Testing€Authority€Inc.€v.€Metropolitan€Government€of€NashvilleÏand€Davidson€Countyóó,€Tenn.€App.€1992,€842€S.W.2d€611,€615.ÌÌà àAppellants€assert€collateral€estoppel€by€a€judgment€entered€by€another€trial€court€onÏSeptember€11,€1995òò€afteróó€entry€of€judgment€in€the€present€case€on€September€5,€1995.€TheÏdoctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€precludes€further€litigation€of€particular€facts€on€which€jury€orÏcourt€necessarily€made€findings€in€a€òòformer€actionóó.€€òòShelley€v.€Gipsonóó,€Tenn.€1966,€400ÏS.W.2d€709,€714.€€A€òòprioróó€judgment€is€not€shown€in€the€present€case.ÌÌà àDuring€oral€argument€counsel€stated€that€the€gravamen€of€appellantððsÏjurisdiction/standing€issue€is€that€there€are€two€entities€named€Orlando€Residence,€Ltd.,€(ORL),Ïin€one€of€which€Hardige€is€the€general€partner€owning€98%,€and€in€the€other€of€which€he€is€theÏsole€owner.€€In€this€situation,€the€doctrine€of€ð ðde€minimis€lex€non€caratðð€(the€law€is€notÏconcerned€with€trifles)€applies.€€Whether€Mr.€Hardige€is€98%€or€100%€owner€of€the€plaintiff,Ïas€general€partner€or€as€owner,€he€is€entitled€to€prosecute€this€suit€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiffÏwhich€should€be€more€specifically€identified€by€amendment.€€T.R.C.P.€Rule€17.01.ÌÌÓ  Óà àNo€merit€is€found€in€appellantsðð€first€issue.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellantsðð€second€issue€is:ÌÓÓà àà àDid€€the€Trial€Court€err€in€denying€Defendantsðð€motionÌà àà àfor€summary€judgment?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€record€indicates€that,€after€the€adverse€ruling€upon€appellantsðð€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€there€was€an€evidentiary€hearing€disposing€of€the€merits€of€the€issues€presented€toÏdefendantsðð€second€issue€thereby€rendering€unnecessary€any€consideration€of€plaintiffððs€secondÏissue.€€òò€Hobson€v.€First€State€Bankóó,€Tenn.€App.€1989,€777€S.W.2d€24.€€òòMullins€v.€PrecisionÏRubber€Productsóó,€Tenn.€App.€1984,€671€S.W.2d€496,€498.€€òòTate€v.€County€of€Monroeóó,€Tenn.ÏApp.€1973,€578€S.W.2d€642,€644.Ìà àÌà àAppellantsðð€fifth€issue€is:ÌÓÓà àà àDid€the€Trial€Court€err€in€denying€the€Defendantsðð€Motion€Ìà àà àfor€€Summary€Judgment€based€on€the€statute€of€limitation?€€ÌÓÓà à€Ìà àAppellants€insist€that€an€action€to€set€aside€a€fraudulent€conveyance€and€for€damagesÏincident€thereto€is€ð ðan€action€for€injury€to€personal€propertyðð€for€which€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105Ïprovides€a€statutory€limitation€of€three€years.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€28„2„103€provides€a€seven€year€limitation€upon€actions€for€the€recovery€ofÏreal€estate.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€28„3„110€provides€a€ten€year€limitation€upon€all€cases€not€otherwise€providedÏfor.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€allegedly€fraudulent€conveyance€was€delivered€on€December€29,Ï1986.€€This€suit€was€filed€on€October€16,€1992,€more€than€three€years€later,€but€not€as€much€asÏseven€years€later.ÌÌà àIn€òòRamsey€v.€Quillenóó,€73€Tenn.€(5€Lea)€184€(1880),€the€Court€held€that€the€seven€yearÏstatute€barred€a€suit€to€recover€from€the€innocent€grantee€of€a€fraudulent€conveyance.ÌÌà àIn€òòAkers€v.€Gillentineóó,€33€Tenn.€App.€212,€231€S.W.2d€372€(1950),€suit€was€filed€inÏ1947€to€set€aside€a€fraudulent€deed€executed€in€1939.€€This€Court€held€that€the€action€wasÏbarred€by€the€seven€years€statute.ÌÌà àIn€òòBoro€v.€Hidellóó,€122€Tenn.€80,€120€S.W.€961€(1909),€suit€was€filed€against€theÏvendor€18€years€after€the€execution€of€an€allegedly€fraudulent€deed.€€The€Supreme€Court€heldÏthat€recovery€of€the€property€from€the€vendee€was€barred€by€seven€years€possession€under€anÏassurance€of€title.ÌÌà àIn€òòHowell€v.€Thompsonóó,€95€Tenn.€396,€32€S.W.€309€(1895),€the€Court€held€that€a€suitÏby€a€creditor€to€set€aside€a€transfer€of€bank€stock€was€governed€by€the€three€year€statute€onÏrecovery€of€personal€property.€€The€present€suit€is,€in€part,€for€the€recovery€of€real€estate.ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€plaintiff€seeks€damages€both€compensatory€and€punitive,€in€additionÏto€recovery€of€real€property.€€The€applicable€statute€of€limitations€in€a€particular€case€will€beÏdetermined€according€to€the€gravamen€of€the€complaint,€òòVance€v.€Schulderóó,€Tenn.€1977,€547ÍS.W.2d€927,€931.€€In€the€cited€case€the€three€year€limitation€on€actions€for€damages€toÏproperty,€real€and€personal,€was€held€applicable€to€an€action€for€fraudulent€inducement€to€sellÏcapital€stock€at€less€than€its€true€value.€€The€Court€said:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€We€reject€the€notion€that€injury€to€property€as€contemplatedÌà àà àtherein€is€limited€to€physical€injury€to€property.€€In€our€opinion,Ìà àà àthe€€loss€€in€value€sustained€by€plaintiff€from€the€alleged€tort€ofÌà àà àfraud€€and€€deceit€€is€€included€€within€€the€€phrase,€€ð ðinjuries€to€Ìà àà àpersonal€propertyðð€as€contemplated€in€T.C.A.€ðð€28„305.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWhile€plaintiffððs€action€against€Metric€Partners€to€set€aside€the€allegedly€fraudulentÏconveyance€was€controlled€by€the€seven€year€statute,€the€right€of€plaintiff€to€recover€damagesÏfrom€appellants€and€the€prayer€for€such€other€and€further€relief€as€may€be€just€and€reasonable,Ïis€subject€to€the€three€years€limitation€of€ðð€28„3„105.ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€plaintiff€insists€that,€because€the€quitclaim€deed€was€not€recorded,Ïplaintiff€had€no€notice,€either€actual€or€constructive,€of€the€fraud€until€December€22,€1991,Ïwhen€the€first€evidence€of€the€subject€conveyance€was€made€a€public€record.€€If€this€is€true,€theÏthree€year€statute€did€not€begin€to€run€until€December€22,€1991,€or€such€other€date€as€plaintiffÏhad€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€conveyance.€€The€date€of€such€notice€is€not€shown€byÏuncontradicted€evidence.€€Therefore,€the€running€of€the€statute€upon€plaintiffððs€action€forÏdamages€depends€upon€an€issue€of€fact€which€must€be€determined€by€the€jury.€€òòHill€v.€A.O.ÏSmith€Corpóó.,€6th€Cir.€1986,€801€F.2d€217,€225.ÌÌà àIt€was€not€error€for€the€Trial€Court€to€overrule€appellantsðð€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€based€upon€limitation€of€actions.ÌÌà àAppellantsðð€third€issue€is:ÌÓÓà àà àDid€€the€€Trial€€Court€€err€€by€€granting€€€partial€€€summary€Ìà àà àjudgment€in€favor€of€ORL€and€setting€aside€the€DecemberÌÓÓà àà à1986€deed€as€a€fraudulent€conveyance?ÌÌà àOn€May€18,€1994,€plaintiff€moved€for€summary€judgment€that€the€conveyanceÏdelivered€on€December€29,€1986€was€null€and€void;€supported€by€a€certified€copy€of€a€federalÏcourt€judgment,€the€deposition€of€Kenneth€E.€Nelson,€answers€of€defendants€to€interrogatoriesÏand€certain€other€documents.ÌÌà àIn€response,€appellants€offered€evidence€that€the€equity€conveyed€by€the€subjectÏquitclaim€deed€was€worthless€because€the€property€was€worth€substantially€less€than€theÏmortgage.€€Appellants€attack€this€evidence€as€irrelevant€because€it€does€not€accurately€determineÏthe€value€of€the€realty€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€fraudulent€conveyances,€and€offer€evidence€ofÏsubsequent€transactions€indicating€that€the€equity€conveyed€by€the€quitclaim€deed€did€haveÏsome€value.€€The€evidence€is€disputed€as€to€the€value€of€the€property€conveyed.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€relies€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€66„3„305€which€provides:ÌÓÓà àà àò òConveyances€by€insolvent€without€fair€considerationÌà àà àdeclared€€fraudulentó ó.€€„„€€Every€conveyance€€made€and€€Ìà àà àevery€obligation€€incurred€by€€a€€person€€who€€is€€or€€will€Ìà àà àbe€€thereby€€€rendered€€€insolvent€€€is€€€fraudulent€€€as€€to€Ìà àà àcreditors€€without€€regard€€to€€his€€actual€€€intent,€€if€€the€Ìà àà àconveyance€€€is€€€made€€or€€€the€€obligation€€€is€€€incurred€ÌÓÓà àà àwithout€a€fair€consideration.ÌÓÓÓÓÌà àIn€€order€€to€€make€€a€conveyance€fraudulent€against€creditors,€€€it€€€must€€be€€without€€€a€Ïfair€€consideration,€leaving€€the€€grantor€insolvent;€or€it€must€be€made€with€actual€€€intent€€to€Íhinder,€€delay,€€or€€defraud€€creditors.€€òòHicks€v.€Whitingóó,€149€Tenn.€411,€258€S.W.€784,€794Ï(1924);€òòOttarson€€v.€€Dobson€€&€€Johnson,€€Incóó.,€58€Tenn.€App.€408,€430€S.W.2d€873,€877Ï(1968);€€òòMacon€Bank€&€Trust€Co.,€v.€Hollandóó,€Tenn.€App.€715€S.W.€2d€347,€349€(1986).ÌÌà àEvery€€conveyance€€without€€a€€fair€€consideration€€is€fraudulent€if€the€conveyor€isÏthereby€rendered€insolvent,€or€€if€€he€is€engaged€or€about€to€engage€in€a€business€or€transaction€€Ïfor€€which€€his€€remaining€€€property€€is€€an€unreasonably€€small€€capital,€or€if€he€intends€orÏbelieves€Ìthat€€he€€will€€incur€€debts€€beyond€his€ability€to€pay;€the€second€€situation€€making€theÏconveyance€fraudulent€as€to€€creditors€€and€€as€€to€persons€who€become€creditors€during€€the€Ïcontinuance€€of€€such€€business€transaction,€and€€the€€third€€as€€to€€both€€present€and€futureÏcreditors.€€òòState€ex€rel.€v.€Nashville€Trust€Coóó.,€28€Tenn.€App.€388,€190€S.W.2d€785,€796Ï(1944).€ÌÌà àA€€conveyance€€which€€renders€the€grantor€execution„proof€is€fraudulent,€irrespective€ofÏgrantorððs€intent,€and€may€€be€€set€aside€where€there€was€no€consideration€for€the€€conveyance,€Ïand€€grantee€€knew€of€the€fraud€at€the€time€€of€€the€conveyance.€€òòCitizens€Bank€&€Trust€Co.,€v.ÏWhite,óó€12€Tenn.€App.€583€(1930).à àà àÌÌà àThere€is€evidence€that€the€conveyance€was€without€consideration,€that€at€the€time€of€theÏconveyance€the€conveyor€was€insolvent€or€that€the€conveyance€rendered€the€conveyorÏinsolvent.€€However,€there€is€a€factual€dispute€in€the€evidence€on€these€issues€which€precludesÏa€summary€judgment€that€the€conveyance€was€fraudulent€and€void.€€See€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€Tenn.Ï1993,€847€S.W.2d€208;€see€òòBraswell€v.€Carothersóó,€Tenn.€App.€1993,€863€S.W.2d€722,€729.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€insists€that,€because€the€issue€of€the€fraudulent€character€of€the€conveyanceÏwas€subsequently€adjudicated€by€the€jury,€the€issue€of€the€correctness€of€the€summaryÏjudgment€is€moot.€€As€explained€hereafter,€the€non„jury€determination€of€fraud€by€the€TrialÏJudge€resulted€in€error€in€the€jury€charge€which€establishes€the€relevancy€of€appellantsðð€thirdÏissue.ÌÌà àThe€factual€issue€of€fraud€should€have€been€presented€to€the€jury€by€a€proper€charge.€ÏThe€Trial€Judge€erred€in€rendering€summary€judgment€that€the€conveyance€was€fraudulent€andÏvoid.ÌÌà àAppellantsðð€fourth€issue€is:Ìà àà à€€€€Did€the€Trial€Court€err€in€awarding€punitive€damages?ÌÌà àAppellants€argue€that€punitive€damages€are€not€allowable€in€a€fraudulent€conveyanceÏcase.Ìà àà àÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€66„3„101€provides:ÌÓÓà àà àò ò€€€€Conveyances€in€fraud€of€creditors€or€purchasers€voidó ó.€Ìà àà àEvery€€€gift,€€€grant,€€€conveyance€€€of€€€€lands,€€€tenements,€Ìà àà àhereditaments,€goods,€or€chattels,€or€of€€any€rent,€common€Ì`à àà àor€€profit€€out€€of€€the€€same,€€by€€writing€or€otherwise;€and€Ìà àà àevery€bond,€suit,€judgment,€or€execution,€had€or€made€and€Ìà àà àcontrived,€€of€€malice,€€fraud,€€covin,€collusion,€or€guile,€toÌà àà àthe€intent€or€purpose€to€delay,€hinder,€or€defraud€creditors€Ìà àà àof€€their€€just€€and€€lawful€€actions,€€suits,€€debts,€€accounts,Ìà àà àdamages,€€€penalties,€€€forfeitures;€€€or€€€to€€defraud€€€or€€€toÌà àà àdeceive€€€those€€€who€€€shall€€€purchase€€€€the€€€same€€€lands,€Ìà àà àtenements,€€€or€€€hereditaments,€€or€€€any€€€rent,€€€profit,€€or€Ìà àà àcommodity€€out€of€them,€shall€be€deemed€€and€€taken,€only€Ìà àà àas€€against€€the€€person,€€such€€personððs€€heirs,€€successors,€Ìà àà àexecutors,€administrators,€and€assigns,€whose€debts,€suits,€Ìà àà àdemands,€€€estates,€€€or€€€interest,€€by€€€such€€€guileful€€€and€Ìà àà àcovinous€€practices€€as€€aforementioned,€shall€or€€might€be€Ìà àà àin€any€wise€disturbed,€hindered,€delayed,€€or€defrauded,€to€Ìà àà àbe€€clearly€€and€€utterly€€void;€€any€pretense,€color,€feigned€Ìà àà àconsideration,€€expressing€€of€€use,€€of€any€other€matter€or€Ìà àà àthing,€to€the€contrary€notwithstanding.Ìà àà àÌÓÓÌÓÓà àT.C.A.€ðð€66„3„301€et€seq.€is€the€Uniform€Law€of€Fraudulent€Conveyances.€€ðð€66„3„305€provides:Ìà àÌà àà à€€€€ò òConveyances€by€insolvent€without€fair€considerationÌà àà àdeclared€€fraudulentó ó.€€„„€€Every€conveyance€€made€€and€every€€Ìà àà àobligation€€incurred€€by€€a€€person€€who€€is€€or€€will€€be€thereby€Ìà àà àrendered€€insolvent€is€fraudulent€as€to€creditors€without€regard€Ìà àà àto€his€actual€intent,€if€the€conveyance€is€made€or€the€obligation€Ìà àà àis€€incurred€ÓÓwithout€a€fair€consideration.ÌÌà àðð€66„3„308€provides:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€ò òConveyances€with€intent€to€defraud.€ó ó„€Every€conveyanceÌà àà àmade€€and€€every€€obligation€€incurred€€with€€actual€€intent,€€as€Ìà àà àdistinguished€from€intent€presumed€in€law,€to€hinder,€delay,€orÌà àà àdefraud,€€either€€present€or€future€creditors,€is€fraudulent€as€to€Ìà àà àboth€present€and€future€creditors.€ÓÓÌÌà àðð€66„3„310€provides:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€€€€€ò òRemedies€€of€€creditor€€on€€matured€€debtó ó.€„€Where€a€Ìà àà àconveyance€€or€€obligation€is€fraudulent€as€to€a€creditor,€such€ÌÓÓÓÓà àà àcreditor,€€when€€the€€claim€€has€€matured,€may,€as€against€anyÌà àà àperson€€except€€a€€purchaser€€for€€fair€€consideration€€without€Ìà àà àknowledge€€of€€the€€fraud€€at€the€time€of€the€purchase€for€fairÌà àà àconsideration€without€knowledge€of€€the€fraud€at€the€time€of€Ìà àà àthe€€purchase,€€or€€one€€who€€has€derived€title€immediately€orÌà àà àmediately€from€such€a€purchaser;Ìà àà à€€€€(1)€Have€€the€€conveyance€set€aside€or€obligation€annulledÌà àà àto€€the€€extent€€necessary€€to€€satisfy€€the€€creditorððs€€claim;€orÌà àà à€€€€(2)€Disregard€the€conveyance€and€attach€or€levy€execution€ÌÓÓà àà àupon€the€property€conveyed.ÌÌà àAppellants€insist€that€ðð€66„3„310€is€the€exclusive€remedy€for€fraudulent€conveyance€andÏthereby€excludes€the€recovery€of€damages.€€This€Court€does€not€agree.€€€ðð€66„3„310€allowsÏprocedure€against€the€property€by€the€holder€of€a€matured€debt.€€ðð€66„3„312€provides€for€otherÏremedies€for€a€creditor€of€an€unmatured€debt.€€Neither€statute€excludes€compensatory€orÏpunitive€€damages€where€the€facts€justify.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€66„3„313€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€ò òApplication€of€general€law.ó 󀄀In€€any€case€€not€providedÌà àà àfor€€in€€this€€part,€the€rules€of€law€and€equity,€€including€€theÌà àà àlaw€€merchant,€€and€€in€€particular€€the€rules€relating€€to€€the€Ìà àà àlaw€€of€€principal€€and€€agent,€€and€€to€€the€€effect€€of€€fraud,€Ìà àà àmisrepresentation,€duress€or€coercion,€mistake,€bankruptcy,€ÌÓÓà àà àbankruptcy,€or€other€invalidating€cause€shall€govern.à àÌà àÌà àThis€section€evidences€the€legislative€intent€that€no€existing€remedy€be€excluded€by€theÏremedy€provided€in€the€uniform€law.ÌÌà àPunitive€damages€are€allowable€in€cases€involving€fraud.€€òòFirst€National€Bank€ofÏLouisville€v.€Brooks€Farms,óó€Tenn.€1991,€821€S.W.2d€925.òò€€Dodson€v.€Andersonóó,€Tenn.Ï1986,€710€S.W.2d€510,€513.€€òò€Hutchison€v.€Pyburnóó,€Tenn.€App.€1977,€567€S.W.2d€762;€òòGillÏv.€Godwinóó,€59€Tenn.€App.€582,€442€S.W.2d€661€(1967).ÌÌà àPunitive€damages€may€be€awarded€where€rescission€is€granted€for€fraud.òò€€Seaton€v.ÏLawson€Chevrolet€„€Mazda€Incóó.,€Tenn.€1991,€821€S.W.2d€137,€138.ÌÌà àAppellants€insist€that€their€conduct€was€not€shown€to€be€truly€reprehensible€conduct€asÏrequired€by€òòHodges€v.€S.€C.€Toof€&€Coóó.,€Tenn.€1992,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901.€€The€extensiveÏevidence€of€the€convoluted,€serpentine€series€of€transactions€carried€out€by€appellant€need€notÏbe€reviewed€at€this€time.€€On€remand€the€same€or€similar€matters€will€be€resubmitted€to€anotherÏjury€which€will€evaluate€the€evidence€heard€at€that€time€and€render€its€verdict€thereon.ÌÌà àFor€the€same€reason,€it€is€unnecessary€at€this€time€to€review€the€amount€of€punitiveÏdamages€allowed.ÌÌà àœAppellantsðð›€final€issue€complains€of€the€action€of€the€Trial€Court€in€requiring€aÏsubstantial€bond€for€stay€pending€this€appeal.€€No€breach€of€discretion€is€found€in€respect€to€theÏamount€of€bond€required.€€Appellants€argue€that€the€Trial€Court€failed€to€state€reasons€for€theÏamount€of€bond€required.€€This€Court€does€not€interpret€T.R.C.P.€Rule€62.05€to€require€aÏstatement€of€reasons€for€amount€of€bond,€but€only€for€complete€denial€of€stay€on€anyÏcondition.ÌÌà àIn€submitting€the€case€to€the€jury,€the€Trial€Judge€stated€to€the€jury€that€a€fraudulentÏtransfer€and€compensatory€damages€had€already€been€found.€€The€findings€were€erroneous,Ïand€it€was€consequently€error€to€report€such€findings€to€the€jury.€€It€was€also€error€for€the€TrialÏCourt€to€express€opinions€as€to€the€facts€in€the€hearing€of€the€jury.€€For€these€reasons,€theÏverdict€of€the€jury€must€be€vacated€and€the€cause€remanded€for€retrial.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€in€favor€of€Metric€upon€its€derivative€action€for€exoneration€must€also€beÏvacated€to€await€the€result€of€the€new€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€partial€summary€judgment€and€final€judgment€in€favor€of€plaintiff€and€the€finalÏjudgment€in€favor€of€the€cross€plaintiff€are€reversed€and€vacated.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€theÏTrial€Court€for€retrial€on€all€issues.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€plaintiff„appellee.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓREVERSED,€VACATED€ANDÏREMANDEDó óÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_____________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE