WPC! # VUNa % 0 (4 0l 0Dl   0J 0T 0^V 0h w 0r, 0| 0 0 1u0 U, 0d U,5U>a BU 6B)DC AM^U* D3!) 0@'gfqxv~vW AO* y 0D?! D/! B!HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($vd 3|xN((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  BӀN 2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman d<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial$$$$'dxd  !#d##  ))   YYY FILED)X March5,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk  !#d##   $       %%T.C.A.482101,etseq.("$     !#d##   $       %%T.C.A.4718101,etseq.  !#d##   $       %%CommonwealthalsoreliedupontheFederalArbitrationAct.Wedonotfinditnecessarytodetermineifthisfederallegislationisapplicabletothiscase.Cf. Arnoldv.MorganKeegan&Co.,Inc. ,03S019410CH00091,1996WL15857at*7,footnote2(SupremeCourtatKnoxville,January16,1996). g !#d##   $       %%T.C.A.295315providesasfollows: 8 Uponthegrantingofanorderconfirming,modifyingorcorrectinganaward,judgmentordecreeshallbeenteredinconformitytherewithandbeenforcedasanyotherjudgmentordecree.Costsoftheapplication,andoftheproceedingssubsequentthereto,anddisbursementsmaybeawardedbythecourt.%X# !#d##   $       %%T.C.A.295320.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##    P %\RA'\7XXdd7  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  L(+';+'h|L`  `LDUANEA.PETERS,   )C/ANO.03A019508CV00295      )BLOUNTCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT PlaintiffAppellant, )      )      )      )v.      )      )HONORABLEW.DALEYOUNG,      )JUDGE      )      )      )      )COMMONWEALTHASSOCIATES,  )      )APPEALDISMISSED DefendantAppellee. )REMANDEDKEVINW.SHEPHERD,Maryville,forAppellant.DAVIDT.BLACKandC.EDWINSHOEMAKERofKIZERANDBLACK,Maryville,forAppellee.  OPINION          Susano,J.  ThisisanactionbroughtbyDuaneA.Peters(Peters)forallegedviolationsoftheTennesseeSecuritiesActof1980 ,   ׀andtheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActof1977 .   .Peters'suitagainstCommonwealthAssociates(Commonwealth)aroseoutofinvestmentsmadebyPetersthroughDavidDudkin,anagentofCommonwealth.CommonwealthmovedtostaythisactionandtocompelarbitrationofPeters'claimspursuanttoT.C.A.295301etseq.,theUniformArbitrationAct /   .Insupportofitsmotion,Commonwealthrelieduponawrittenagreement,signedbyPeters,whereinheagreedtosubmitallcontroversiesbetweenthepartiestoarbitration.ThetrialcourtgrantedCommonwealth'smotion,stayingallproceedingsincourtandorderingthepartiestoproceedwitharbitration.Petersappeals,raisingthefollowingissues: `  ` 1.IsthearbitrationagreementvoidundertheprovisionsoftheTennesseeSecuritiesActof1980?2.DidthetrialcourterrinorderingarbitrationofPeters'claims?      I    Petersdoesnotdisputethathesigneda"CustomerAgreement"withCommonwealthwhichstatesthat"controversiesarisingbetween[Peters]and[Commonwealth]...shallbedeterminedbyarbitration."Heasserts,however,thattheagreementisvoidunderthefollowingprovisionoftheTennesseeSecuritiesActof1980: `  ` Anycondition,stipulation,orprovisionbindinganypersonacquiringanysecuritytowaivecompliancewithanyprovisionofthispartoranyruleororderhereunderisvoid.̀    T.C.A.482122(i).Peterscontendsthat"thearbitrationlimitationwithinhisCustomerAgreementisaprovisionwhichwouldattempttolimit[his]abilitytochallenge"Commonwealthforallegedstatutoryviolations.Petersfurtherarguesthat"[t]hetrialcourt'sactionincompellingarbitrationhasineffectpreemptedtheapplicationofthetwostatutoryviolationsraisedby[him]."  Ascanbeseen,Petersarguesinthealternative.First,hecontendsthatthiscaseisnotcontrolledbytheUniformArbitrationActbecause,sotheargumentgoes,thearbitrationprovisioninquestionisvoidasviolativeofT.C.A.482122(i).Second,hecontendsthateveniftheUniformArbitrationActapplies,thetrialcourtshouldnothaveorderedarbitration.Wewilladdresstheappellant'sfirstissueforthethresholdpurposeofdeterminingwhethertheparties'CustomerAgreementissubjecttotheUniformArbitrationAct.@ II  ThepositionadvancedbyPetersinhisfirstissuewasrejectedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinacasearisingunderafunctionallyidenticalprovisionofthefederalSecuritiesActof1933.In RodriguezdeQuijasv.Shearson/AmericanExp.,Inc., 490U.S.477,109S.Ct.1917,104L.Ed.2d526(1989),thecourtfoundanagreementtoarbitratedisputesenforceable,notingthat `  ` [b]yagreeingtoarbitrateastatutoryclaim,apartydoesnotforgothesubstantiverightsaffordedbythestatute;itonlysubmitstotheirresolutioninanarbitral,ratherthanajudicial,forum.    Id.,490U.Sat481,109S.Ctat1920.WeagreewiththeanalysisoftheSupremeCourt.Peters'substantivestatutoryrightswillnotbeabridgedbysubmissionofhisclaimstoabodyofarbitratorsratherthantoajudicialforum.Thefollowingobservationbythecourtin RodriguezdeQuijas holdstruehere: `  ` Thereisnothingintherecordbeforeus,norinthefactsofwhichwecantakejudicialnotice,toindicatethatthearbitralsystem...wouldnotaffordtheplaintifftherightstowhichheisentitled.    Id.,490U.S.at483,109S.Ct.at1921.WeholdthearbitrationprovisionatissueinthiscaseisnotvoidedbyT.C.A.482122(i).Therefore,theparties'CustomerAgreementissubjecttotheUniformArbitrationAct.  III  Ӏ  RegardingPeters'generalchallengetothetrialcourt'sordercompellingarbitration,CommonwealtharguesthatsuchanorderisnotappealableunderTennessee'sstatutoryarbitrationscheme.Weagree.Intheunreportedcaseof AndersonCountyv.ArchitecturalTechniquesCorp. ,No.03A019205CH00184,1993WL5921(CourtofAppealsatKnoxville,January14,1993)(Franks,J.),thiscourtaddressedthequestionofwhetheranordercompellingarbitrationisappealable,andconcludeditwasnot.Westatedthefollowinginthe AndersonCounty opinion: `  ` TheUniformArbitrationActprovideswhenanappealasofrightwilllieinarbitrationcases.T.C.A.Sec.295319states:"Appeal.(a)Anappealmaybetakenfrom:8 (1)AnorderdenyinganapplicationtocompelarbitrationmadeunderSec.295303;8 (2)AnordergrantinganapplicationtostayarbitrationmadeunderSec.295303(b);8 (3)Anorderconfirmingordenyingconfirmationofanaward;8 (4)Anordermodifyingorcorrectingan award;8 (5)Anordervacatinganawardwithoutdirectingarehearing;and8 (6)Ajudgmentordecreeenteredpursuanttotheprovisionsofthispart.̀(b)TheAppealshallbetakeninthemanner andtothesameextentasfromordersor judgmentsinacivilaction."Noneofthebasesforappealsintheforegoingcodesectionismet.Sincethestatuteallowsanappealfromthegrantingofastay[ofarbitration],thecorollaryisnoappealisprovidedfromthedenialofastay.Moreover,"judgmentordecree"referredtoinSec.295319(a)(6)istheentryofjudgmentordecreeascontemplatedinT.C.A.Sec.295315. 0      Id.at1993WL5921at*1.  TheGeneralAssemblyhasnotamendedT.C.A.295319toallowanappealofanordercompellingarbitrationsincethe AndersonCounty case.Weadheretoourjudgmentthatwecannot"readin"aprovisionallowinganappealinafactualpatternnotspecificallyrecognizedinthecodeprovisionthatdelineateswhen"[a]nappealmaybetaken."Further,inlightoftheUniformArbitrationAct'sprovisionmandatingthat"[t]hispartshallbesoconstruedastoeffectuateitsgeneralpurposetomakeuniformthelawofthosestateswhichenactit 1   ,"wefindpersuasivecasesinaccordwithourviewfromotherstatesthathaveenactedtheprovisionofourUniformArbitrationActdealingwithappeals.See,e.g., ChemAsh,Inc.v.ArkansasPower&LightCo., 751S.W.2d353(Ark.1988); FayetteCountyFarmBureauFederationv.Martin, 758S.W.2d713(Ky.App.1988); Bluffs,Inc.,v.Wysocki, 314S.E.2d291(N.C.App.1984);seegenerallyAnnotation,AppealabilityofStateCourt'sOrderorDecreeCompellingorRefusingtoCompelArbitration,6A.L.R.4th652(1981).  Thisappealispremature.Therefore,wecannotreachtheappellant'sissueclaimingthatthetrialcourterredinorderingarbitration.  Thisappealisdismissed.Thecostsonappealaretaxedtotheappellantandhissurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.       ____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.