ÿWPCg …UNV %¤ 0(ª<Òw@4Nbqby 0l 0Dí 0J1 0T{ 0^Ï 0h- 0r• 0| 0†ƒ 0 1u™ 0d U >r B)° DCÙ AMU*i“@¡v~ávÓ_ B2 D3O 0@‚ AOÂÆ 0D× D/ BJ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\brief.wpt U DV W EX EY Z 6e[ \ ] Ó€g DÒ 3|xg - ù-((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌApril€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Appellants€Shipper€and€Barry€did€not€testify€at€trial€because,€according€to€their€attorneys,Ïthe€testimony€would€have€been€cumulative€to€that€of€Appellant€Walker.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d))))'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ¼ÔÑ€ ÑÑ7€ÕTXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœÞ ÞÌJOSEPH›€G.€WALKER,€ET€AL.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€01„A„01„9610„CH„00497Ìà àPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILSON€CHANCERY€NO.€9191̜ـ€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|Ãý²` ç `€€@ÿRß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBOARD€OF€EDUCATION€OFà àà à)ÌWILSON€COUNTY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDEFENDANT/APPELLEE.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€  ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€WILSON€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURT€ÌÌà@ àAT€LEBANON,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGEÔ€ ¼ÔÌÌÌÔ€ XÔWILLIAM€L.€HARBISONÌSherrard€&€Roe,€PLCÌ424€Church€Street,€Suite€2000ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLANT€LALETA€SHIPPERÌÌHENRY€CLAY€BARRYÌ106€South€College€StreetÌLebanon,€Tennessee€37087Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLANT€ALLEN€BARRYÌÌERNEST€W.€COTTENÌ202€East€Gay€StreetÌLebanon,€Tennessee€37087Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLANT€JOSEPH€G.€WALKERÌÌMICHAEL€R.€JENNINGSÌWilson€County€AttorneyÌ326€N.€Cumberland€StreetÌLebanon,€Tennessee€37087Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLEE€BOARD€OF€EDUCATIONÌà àOF€WILSON€COUNTYÌÌÔ€ ¼ÔÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòÔ€  ÔOÔ€ ¼ÔPINIONÌóóÌÓ€ÓÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiffs/appellants,€Joseph€G.€Walker,€Laleta€ShipperÏand€Allen€Barry,€from€a€decision€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€their€complaint€toÏrecover€attorneysðð€fees€from€defendant/appellee,€the€Board€of€Education€ofÏWilson€County€(ð ðthe€Boardðð).€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€matter€arose€are€asÏfollows.ÌÌà àIn€February€1991,€the€District€Attorney€General€initiated€ousterÏproceedings€against€Appellants€and€Frank€Sadler,€all€members€of€the€Board,€onÏthe€recommendation€of€the€grand€jury.€€The€grand€jury's€decision€was€the€resultÏof€its€investigation€into€audits€that€revealed€the€Wilson€County€School€System€hadÏincurred€a€budget€deficit€of€approximately€two€million€dollars€for€fiscal€yearsÏ1988„90.€€ÌÌà àSeveral€things€happened€as€the€case€proceeded€to€trial.€€Frank€SadlerÏresigned€his€board€position€rather€than€defend€himself€at€trial.€€AppellantsÏlearned€the€Boardððs€insurance€would€not€cover€the€legal€expenses€associated€withÏthe€ouster€proceeding.€€Also,€Mike€Jennings,€the€county€attorney,€informedÏAppellants€he€could€not€represent€them€in€the€ouster€proceeding€because€of€aÏconflict€of€interest.€€Appellant€Walker€testified€that€Mr.€Jennings€advisedÏAppellants€to€retain€their€own€counsel€and€that€Appellant€Walker€understood€theÏBoard€would€pay€for€it€ð ðout€of€a€budget€line€item€for€the€school€board.ðð× ƒ& ××  ×€ÏAppellants€each€retained€counsel€to€represent€them,€and€the€case€went€to€trial.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€end€of€the€trial,€the€court€directed€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Appellants€asÏto€€count€nine€and€turned€the€remaining€eight€counts€over€to€the€jury.€€AfterÏhearing€the€jury's€findings,€the€court€ordered€the€ouster€of€Appellants.€ÏThereafter,€Appellants€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€which€the€court€denied.€ÏAppellants€also€filed€a€motion€for€attorneys'€fees€in€relation€to€the€dismissedÏcount€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€and€42€U.S.C.€ðð1988.ÌÌà àAppellants€appealed€the€trial€court's€decision€to€oust€them€from€the€Board.€ÏThis€court€reversed€the€trial€court€after€finding,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ïð ðWe€are€of€the€opinion€after€a€thorough€review€of€this€record€that€the€defendantsÏhave€not€violated€any€of€the€duties€assigned€to€them.ðð€€òòò òState€v.€Walkeróóó ó,€845ÏS.W.2d€752,€760€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€As€a€result,€Appellants€Walker€and€BarryÏwere€reinstated.€€Appellant€Shipper€was€not€reinstated€because€her€term€hadÏexpired.ÌÌà àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€entered€an€ð ðOrder€for€Costðð€which€awardedÏAppellants€costs€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€8„47„122,€butÏdenied€their€claims€to€attorneys'€fees.€€The€trial€court€determined€it€did€not€haveÏauthority€to€order€the€Board€to€pay€Appellants'€attorneys'€fees€and€concluded€theÏBoard€should€determine€the€issue€itself.ÌÌà àAppellants€then€initiated€a€second€appeal€which€this€court€dismissed€forÏlack€of€a€final€judgment.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€awarding€aÏspecified€amount€of€costs.€€Appellants€initiated€a€third€appeal.€€The€westernÏsection€heard€the€case€while€sitting€in€Nashville.€€The€western€section€determinedÏAppellants€were€entitled€to€Rule€11€sanctions€as€to€count€nine€and€were€notÏentitled€to€fees€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð1988.€€òòò òState€v.€Walkeróóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„9311„CR„00486,€1994€WL€164144,€*4„5€(Tenn.€App.€4€May€1994).ÌÌà àAfter€the€Board€reinstated€Appellants€Walker€and€Barry,€AppellantsÏrequested€the€Board€pay€their€attorney's€fees.€€The€Board€refused.€€Prior€to€theÏfiling€of€the€western€section's€decision,€Appellants€filed€a€complaint€in€the€WilsonÏCounty€Chancery€Court.€€Appellants€claimed€a€motion€carried€by€the€Board€on€8ÏOctober€1987€required€the€Board€pay€their€attorney's€fees.€€The€minutes€of€the€8ÏOctober€1987€meeting€provided:€€ð ðMrs.€Shipper€moved€that€any€judgmentÏrendered€against€any€Board€member,€Superintendent,€or€employee€while€acting€inÏhis€or€her€official€capacity€be€paid€for€by€the€Board.€€Mrs.€Webb€seconded€andÏthe€motion€carried.ðð€€Appellants€also€filed€the€affidavit€of€Felix€Smallwood,ÏWilson€County€School€Superintendent€from€September€1984€to€September€1988,Ïin€support€of€their€complaint.€€Mr.€Smallwood€stated€the€intent€of€the€motionÏð ðwas€that€the€school€system€was€to€pay€the€cost€incurred€as€a€result€of€litigationÏbrought€against€school€system€officials.ðð€€In€response,€the€Board€argued€the€trialÏcourt€decided€the€issue€in€the€ouster€proceeding€and€the€8€October€1987€minutesÏdid€not€reflect€a€Board€policy€to€pay€attorney's€fees.ÌÌà àThe€chancery€court€entered€its€final€judgment€on€23€May€1996€wherein€itÏdismissed€Appellants'€complaint.€€The€chancery€court€found€there€was€noÏstatutory€basis€for€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€the€Board€did€not€establish€aÏpolicy€for€paying€attorney's€fees.€€Thereafter,€Appellants€filed€a€timely€notice€ofÏappeal.€€The€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€Appellants€are€entitled€to€recoverÏtheir€attorneysðð€fees€from€the€Board.ÌÌà àAppellants€are€not€entitled€to€relief€under€Tennessee€law.€€In€1879,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€decided€a€similar€case.€€òòò òSmith€v.€Nashvilleó óóó,€72ÍTenn.€69€(1879).€€In€òòò òSmithóóó ó,€the€State€brought€a€bill,€on€the€relation€of€a€numberÏof€Nashville€citizens,€accusing€the€Mayor€and€Common€Council€of€Nashville,€theÏMayor,€individual€members€of€the€City€Council,€and€other€city€officials€withÏgross€misconduct€and€with€having€brought€the€corporation€to€the€verge€ofÏbankruptcy.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€70.€€On€5€June€1869,€the€Mayor€retained€an€attorney€to€aidÏthe€City€Attorney€in€the€€defense€of€the€case.€€The€Mayor€and€the€City€CouncilÏratified€the€Mayorððs€action€in€September€1869.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€71.€€Thereafter,€theÏattorney€filed€an€action€for€his€fees.€€The€trial€court€concluded€the€municipalÏcorporation€had€no€interest€in€defending€the€bill€and€that€neither€the€City€CouncilÏnor€the€Mayor€had€the€authority€to€bind€the€municipal€corporation.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€entered€judgment€against€the€attorney.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏaffirmed€the€judgment€and€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àWhere€a€municipal€corporation€has€no€interest€in€the€event€ofÏa€suit,€or€in€the€question€involved€in€the€case,€it€would€seem€clearÏthat€it€could€not€assume€the€defense€of€the€suit,€or€appropriate€itsÏmoney€for€the€payment€of€the€expenses€incurred.€.€.€.€Most€clearlyÏthe€€corporation€could€not€appropriate€money€to€defray€the€costs€ofÏan€official€who€had€been€prosecuted€for€official€misconduct,Ïòòalthough€he€be€acquittedóó.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óòòò òId.ó óóó€at€72€(emphasis€added).€€The€court€then€stated:€€ð ðA€retainer€for€the€defense€ofÏany€suit€in€which€the€corporation€is€not€directly€interested€would€be€of€no€avail€toÏcreate€a€corporate€liability.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€73.€€This€case€is€analogous€to€the€caseÏcurrently€before€this€court.€€Appellants€have€failed€to€provide€any€authority€inÏopposition€to€the€holding€in€òòò òSmithó óóó.€€In€a€more€recent€case,€this€court€concludedÏthat€ð ðsuits€under€the€ouster€law€are€directed€to€the€individual€holding€the€officeÏrather€than€the€office€itself.ðð€€òòò òMarshall€v.€Sevier€Countyóóó ó,€639€S.W.2d€440,Ï444€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€After€considering€this€holding€and€the€decision€inÏòòò òSmithó óóó,€we€must€conclude€the€City€did€not€have€an€interest€in€the€suit.€€Thus,ÏAppellants€can€not€recover€their€attorneyððs€fees€at€law.ÌÌà àAppellants€also€argue€they€are€entitled€to€their€attorneysðð€fees€because€theÏBoard€had€a€policy€or€practice€of€paying€its€memberððs€attorneyððs€fees.€€There€wasÏno€policy.€€In€1987,€the€Boardððs€rules€required€there€be€three€readings€before€aÏproposal€became€a€policy.€€The€8€October€1987€motion€never€received€threeÏreadings.€€Even€if€we€were€to€conclude€there€was€a€practice€as€opposed€to€aÏformal€policy,€we€could€not€reverse€the€trial€court€on€that€basis€alone.€€InÏòòò òMarshalló óóó,€this€court€considered€a€similar€argument€and€determined€it€wasÏwithout€merit.€€òòò ò€Marshallóóó ó,€639€S.W.2d€at€445.€€Moreover,€Appellants€haveÏfailed€to€cite€any€equitable€principles€entitling€them€to€relief.€€There€is€noÏevidence€the€City€benefited€from€Appellantsðð€actions€or€that€Appellants€relied€onÏthe€Cityððs€ð ðpracticeðð€when€they€hired€independent€counsel.ÌÌà àDespite€our€desire€to€overrule€the€chancery€court,€we€were€unable€to€find€aÏlegal€or€equitable€ground€upon€which€to€base€such€a€ruling.€€The€history€of€theÏcase€reveals€Appellants€had€done€nothing€wrong,€but€were€forced€to€incurÏsubstantial€attorneysðð€fees€nonetheless.€€Should€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€takeÏthis€issue€up€for€consideration,€we€hope€they€are€able€to€devise€a€just€result.ÌÌà àTherefore,€it€follows€that€the€decision€of€the€chancery€court€is€affirmedÏand€the€case€remanded€for€any€further€necessary€proceedings.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€taxed€to€plaintiffs/appellants,€Joseph€G.€Walker,€Laleta€Shipper,€and€AllenÏBarry.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€J.