WPCu$ # t U: % 0 w@ 4  0J g 0Tm  0^ 0h- 0r 0| 0 0  1u 0dU*rB)DC AM BUrsv~v D3 0@ AOM  0Db! D/! B! 0?! 0D1$HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd,cAZ"Arial RegularX(~$  HTR[A' LegalLh (Avery 4167 Post CardA' Legalh (Avery 4167 Post CardTXmXXX73XXdXXd7 DDEӀڃ"@3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  H2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-"C << G d  !  #d#     H \RA'\#d#      YYY FILED X July24,1997CecilCrowson,Jr. AppellateCourtClerk  i !#d#     H \RA'\#d#  $       AppellantinsiststhatRobinsonwaswrongfullydecided,androundlyexegetesit,apparentlyassumingthecontractmadenoprovisionforattorneyfees,whichwereallowednotwithstanding.Overlookedisthedecisivefactthatthepartiestreatedthecontractasprovidingforattorneyfees,butwithnospecificlimitationontheaward.Hence,thearbitrationwasjustifiedona fairandequitablebasis.ItappearstobeconsonantwithArnoldv.MorganKeeganCo.,Inc.,914S.W.2d445(Tenn.1996),decidedtwoyearslater.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva $$$$'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd((3$ ~!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   ! .      H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#  ݛ %  Ԝ  R#%"A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTION   DANIELW.SMITH,   ) LOUDONCHANCERY      ) Plaintiff/Appellee   )      )v.      ) NO.03A019704CH00127      )M.L.WALLER,JR.and   ) HON.FRANKV.WILLIAMS,IIIJOYCEC.WALLER,   )      ) Defendants/Appellants  ) MODIFIEDand      ) REMANDEDC.PaulHarrison,Knoxville,forAppellantsJamesHarveyStutts,Sweetwater,forAppellee   OPINION         INMAN,SeniorJudge ThisactionwasfiledinChanceryCourtfordamagesforbreachofcontract.Theplaintiffleasedcertainpremisesfromthedefendants,whoallegedlyterminatedhistenancyandrefusedtorecognizearenewaloption,therebytriggeringthecomplaintfordamages. Aspertinenttothecasebeforeus,theleaseprovidesthat Intheeventofanydisputeordisagreementamongthepartiesheretoortoanyobligationordutyrequiredhereinthesaidpartiesshallarbitratesuchdispute...andthethree[arbitrators]afterhearingthefactsconcerningthematterindispute,shallarbitratethematter[emphasisadded]andtheir...decisionshallbefinalandbindingontheϜpartieshereto. Relyinguponthequotedleaseprovisionthedefendantsfiledamotiontodismiss.Theplaintiffrespondedthathehadrequestedthatthedisputebesubmittedtoarbitration,andthathisrequestwasignoredwhichoughttoestopthedefendantsfromtheirrelianceonthearbitrationprovisionsincetheplaintiff hasincurredcosts,  attorneysfeesandtrialpreparationexpenses.Alternatively,herequestedthatthemotiontodismissshouldbetreatedasanapplicationforarbitrationpursuanttotheUniformArbitrationAct,T.C.A.295301etseq. Therecorddoesnotreflecthowthecasefounditswaytoarbitration,whetherbyOrderoftheChancellororbyagreement.Inanyevent,apanelofthreearbitratorsheardthedispute. Thepredicateleaseprovidesonlythatthearbitrators shallarbitratethematterindispute.Variousmatterswereindispute;thearbitratorsfoundthatthedefendantsviolatedtheleaseholdinterestsoftheplaintiffandawardeddamagesof$4,320.00for personalpropertyonsite.Theyalsoawardedattorneyfeestotheplaintiffof$2,562.50. Thedefendantsthereuponfiledamotiontovacateand/ormodifyaward,allegingthattheawardofattorneysfeeswasbeyondtheauthorityofthearbitrators,sinceneithertheleasenorthestatute[theUniformArbitrationAct]providesforattorneyfees.ThismotionwasoverruledbytheChancellorwhorelieduponanunreporteddecisionofthisCourt,R.D.Robinson,Inc.v.DQHSX,Inc.,No.03A019405CH00175,EasternSection,October1994,whereinanawardofattorneyfeesbyanarbitrator,upheldbytheChancellor,wasaffirmed. &   כThedefendantappeals,insistingthattheawardofattorneyfeeswasunjustifiedasbeyondtheauthorityofthearbitrators. ThisCourtismandatedtoreviewthedecisionofthetrialcourtinanarbitrationcaseundera clearlyerroneousstandard,whichrequiresdeferentialtreatment.Arnoldv.MorganKeeganCo.,Inc.,914S.W.2d445(Tenn.1996). Arnoldisclearonthepointthatanarbitrationawardisnotsubjecttothepreponderantevidencestandardofreview,andmoreover, thatitisnotsubjecttovacationforameremistakeoffactorlaw.Id.at451.QuotingwithapprovalfromCarolinaFashionExhibitorsv.Gunter,41N.C.App.407,255S.E.2d414(1979),Arnoldholds:  8 Ifanarbitratormakesamistake,eitherastolaworfact,itisamisfortuneoftheparty,andthereisnohelpforit.ThereisnorightofappealandtheCourthasnopowertorevisethedecisionsof judgeswhoareofthepartiesownchoosing.An[arbitration]awardisintendedtosettlethematterincontroversy,andthussavetheexpenseoflitigation.Ifamistakebeasufficientgroundforsettingasideanaward,itopensadoorforcomingintocourtinalmosteverycase;forinninecasesoutoftensomemistake,eitheroflaworfact,maybesuggestedbythedissatisfiedparty.Thusarbitration,insteadofending,wouldtendtoincreaselitigation.Id.at451.   ButArnoldalsorecognizesthatarbitratorsexceedthepowerswhentheygobeyondthescopeofauthoritygrantedbythearbitrationagreement.T.C.A.295313(a)providesthattheCourtshallvacateanawardwhere(3)thearbitratorsexceededtheirpowers.Wethinkthearbitratorsinthecaseathandexceededtheirpowersintheawardofattorneyfees. Wecannotrationalizetheanomalycreatedbyallowinganarbitratortoawardattorneyfeesascontrastedtoatrialcourtwhichindisputablycouldnotmakesuchanawardintheexactcircumstancesabsentcontractualorstatutoryauthority.Itiswellsettledinthisjurisdictionthatattorneyfeescannotbeawardedincontractdisputesunlessthecontractorapplicablestatutoryordecisionallawsoprovides.Guessv.Maury,726S.W.2d906(Tenn.App.1986).Inthecaseatbar,theleasemakesnoprovisionforanyspecificrecovery,whetherfees,costs,expenses,damagesorwhatever.Itmerelyprovidesthatthearbitrators,afterhearingthematterindispute, shallarbitratethematter,whichsufficientlyfocusestheissues.T.C.A.295302. Theleasedoesnotprovideforattorneyfees;unlikeRobinson,therewasnoconcessionorinterpretiveagreementaboutsuchfees,andmoreover,itwasnota matterindispute.Theawardwasthereforebeyondtheauthorityofthearbitrators,unless,astheappelleeargues,therewasafactualbasisfortheawardwhich,underArnold,shouldbeapprovedundertheclearlyerroneousstandard. Theappelleeinsiststhatbecausehisinitialrequesttoarbitratethedisputewasignored,therebycompellingthelitigationwithresultantexpenses,thearbitrators%  werejustifiedinawardinghimattorneyfees,especiallysincetheleasedoesnotlimittheremediesavailabletothem,whichmaybeappliedona fairandequitablebasis.Thisargumentisattractive,butitcannotovercometheplainbarrierofthelackofauthority.Arbitratorsdonothavecarteblanchepowers;theyareconfinedtointerpretationandapplication...oftheagreement,InternationalTalentGroup,supra.Weconcludethattheawardofattorneyfeesisclearlyerroneous.PursuanttotheauthorityofT.C.A.295314(b),thedecisionofthearbitratorsandthejudgmententeredthereonismodifiedbyelidingtherefromtheawardofattorneyfees.Costsareassessedtotheappelleeandthecaseisremanded.       _____________________________       WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:     _______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge_______________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judgè̜̀