ÿWPCð% 9# .UN9 %‡ 0(w@µ4õ  0 l 0D„ 0JÈ 0T 0^f 0hÄ 0r, 0|ž 0† 0  0D0 1ut 0dé U >M B)‹ 0@´ D3ô DC' AMj U*· á …å @j ðª AQšÆë B± 0DÎ D/ BAa^Ý¿Kœ¸ç}Ÿ¹.¸çv~ŸvÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ „E… † ‡ ˆ ‰£Š‹ŒÓ€˜äzz!3|x˜((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò++++'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd* "Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial úÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òApril€11,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó {Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝT.R.C.P.€11.Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€her€complaint,€Clemmye€also€named€Attorney€Joyce€H.€Sealand€as€a€defendant,€as€wellÏas€the€law€firm€of€Ratner,€Rotchild€&€Sealand.€€Clemmye€later€filed€a€voluntary€non„suit€as€to€theseÏdefendants.Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€clarity,€we€refer€to€Clemmye€Mullenix€Berger€and€Louis€Jack€Berger€by€their€firstÏnames€as€they€were€in€the€briefs.Ì* ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd WÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€complaint€also€referred€to€conveyances€of€stock€in€another€Panchoððs€corporationÏ(Panchoððs€Taco€of€Memphis,€Inc.),€as€well€as€real€estate,€but€the€Rule€11€motion€focused€primarilyÏon€allegations€pertaining€to€the€PMI€stock.Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhen€read€in€context,€this€statement€merely€supports€the€preceding€allegations€in€theÏoriginal€complaint€to€the€effect€that€Clemmye€did€not€initiate€the€estate€planning€discussions.€ÏSubsequent€allegations€in€the€original€complaint€make€clear€that€Clemmye€later€participated€inÏdiscussions€with€Ratner€pertaining€to€Clemmyeððs€and€Jackððs€estate€plans.Ì AÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€contained€in€the€amended€complaint,€the€allegation€stated€that€ð ðWhen€Jackððs€Will€wasÏprobated,€Clemmye€first€learned€that€Jack€had€not€left€his€Panchoððs€stock€either€to€her€outright€or€inÏtrust.ððÌ ®Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEffective€July€1,€1995,€Rule€11€was€amended€to€track€the€current€federal€version€of€theÏrule.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.R.C.P.€11€advisory€commissionððs€comment€to€1995€amendment.€€As€revised,ÏRule11€ð ðdoes€not€require€that€a€paper€actually€be€well€grounded€in€fact,€but€only€that€the€claimsÏhave€evidentiary€support€to€the€best€of€the€[pleaderððs]€ððknowledge,€information€and€belief€formedÏafter€an€inquiry€reasonable€under€the€circumstances.ðð€ðð€€ò òòòVandeventer€v.€Wabash€NatððlÏCorp.ó óóó,€893€F.€Supp.€827,€841€(N.D.€Ind.€1995)€(quoting€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11).Ì sÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€supreme€court€has€found€it€appropriate€to€examine€federal€decisional€authority€whenÏinterpreting€the€application€of€Tennesseeððs€version€of€Rule€11.€€ò òòòAndrews€v.€Bibleó óóó,€812€S.W.2dÏat€287;€ò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòKrugó óóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€205.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€the€court€explained:ÌÌà8 àIt€is€surely€obvious€to€any€judge€(as€it€is€to€any€lawyer)€that€it€is€possible€for€anÏattorney€to€make€an€assessment€of€a€clientððs€credibility€in€the€attorneyððs€officeÏwhich€ultimately€may€differ€substantially€from€the€courtððs€assessment€of€the€sameÏÔ&  Ôindividual€under€oath€at€trial.ÌÌò òòòIn€re€Big€Rapids€Mall€Assocs.ó óóó,€98€F.3d€at€932.Ô'  ÔÌ ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòAndrews€v.€Bibleó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€291.Ì ®Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€for€Clemmyeððs€allegation€that€she€did€not€know€the€contents€of€Jackððs€will€until€afterÏhis€death,€we€are€unwilling€to€presume,€as€Ratner€suggests,€that€Clemmye€necessarily€took€theÏopportunity€to€familiarize€herself€with€the€willððs€contents€merely€because€the€will€was€stored€in€aÏsafe€in€Clemmyeððs€home.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌCLEMMYE€MULLENIX€BERGER,ó óà à)à àShelby€County€Circuit€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€62431€T.D.Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9604„CV„00077ÌÙ€*ÙßR€#%"A1-j|BüÏ` Å `€€@ÿRßà à)Ìò òMARVIN€L.€RATNER,€JOYCE€H.€ó óà à)Ìò òSEALAND,€individually€and€as€membersó óà à)Ìò òof€the€law€firm€formerly€known€asó óà à)Ìò òRATNER€&€ROTCHILD€and€nowó óà à)Ìò òknown€as€RATNER,€ROTCHILD€&ó óà à)Ìò òSEALANDó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€James€E.€Swearengen,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òHenry€L.€Kleinó ó,ÌAPPERSON,€CRUM,€DUZANE€&€MAXWELL,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellants€Marvin€L.€Ratner€and€Joyce€H.€Sealand.ÌÌÌò òJoyce€H.€Sealandó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Ratner,€Rotchild€&€Sealand.ÌÌÌò òBlanchard€E.€Tualó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee€Clemmye€Mullenix€Berger.ÌÌò òÌJohn€J.€Thomasonó ó,ÌTHOMASON,€HENDRIX,€HARVEY,€JOHNSON€&€MITCHELL,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Respondent/Appellee€Blanchard€E.€Tual.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àDefendant€Marvin€L.€Ratner€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€his€motion€forÏRule€11× ƒ& ××  ×€sanctions€against€Plaintiff/Appellee€Clemmye€Mullenix€Berger€and€her€attorney,€AppelleeÏBlanchard€Tual.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€RatnerððsÏmotion€for€sanctions,€and€we€affirm.ÌÌà àRatnerððs€motion€for€sanctions€arose€out€of€a€complaint€for€legal€malpractice€filedÏagainst€him€in€June€1994€by€Blanchard€Tual€on€behalf€of€Tualððs€client,€Clemmye€MullenixÏBerger.× ƒ' ××  ×€The€malpractice€complaint€related€to€Ratnerððs€prior€representation€of€both€Clemmye€andÏClemmyeððs€son,€Louis€Jack€Berger,€in€estate€planning€matters.× ƒ( ××  ×€€Essentially,€Clemmye€claimedÏthat€Ratner€failed€to€adequately€represent€Clemmyeððs€interests€in€the€estate€planning€matters€and,Ïfurther,€that€Ratner€breached€his€fiduciary€duty€to€Clemmye€by€failing€to€adequately€advise€her€ofÏthe€conflict€of€interest€which€resulted€from€Ratnerððs€representation€of€both€Clemmye€andÏClemmyeððs€son,€Jack.€€ÌÌà àMore€specifically,€Clemmyeððs€complaint€contained€the€following€allegations.€ÏClemmye,€who€was€81€years€old€when€she€filed€her€complaint,€was€the€founder€of€PanchoððsÏMexican€restaurants.€€Clemmye€opened€her€first€Panchoððs€restaurant€in€1956€in€West€Memphis,ÍArkansas.€€Over€the€years,€Clemmyeððs€business€grew,€and€she€opened€other€Panchoððs€restaurantsÏin€Tennessee,€Arkansas,€and€Mississippi.€€By€Clemmyeððs€own€account,€in€1988€there€wereÏapproximately€seventeen€Panchoððs€restaurants,€ð ðincluding€franchises,€fast€food€outlets,€aÏcommissary€and€a€chip€plant.ðð€€In€the€early€1980's,€as€Clemmye€approached€retirement€age,€sheÏbegan€delegating€and€entrusting€her€Panchoððs€business€affairs€to€her€son,€Jack.€€Around€this€time,ÏJack€began€attempting€to€persuade€Clemmye€to€transfer€her€stock€in€the€various€PanchoððsÏcorporations€to€him.€€In€the€ensuing€years,€Jack€alternately€requested€and€demanded€that€ClemmyeÏtransfer€the€stock€to€him.€€Jack€justified€his€demands€by€explaining€that€Clemmye€ð ðwould€save€aÏhuge€amount€of€estate€and€income€taxesðð€if€she€transferred€the€stock€during€her€lifetime.ÌÌà àIt€was€further€alleged€that,€in€1988,€Jack€employed€Defendant€Ratner€to€prepareÏcomprehensive€estate€plans€for€both€Jack€and€Clemmye.€€Although€Clemmye€claimed€to€have€noÏprior€knowledge€of€these€arrangements,€her€complaint€acknowledged€that€she€later€participated€in€atÏleast€one€meeting€where€the€estate€plans€were€discussed.€€At€the€meeting,€the€discussion€focusedÏon€avoiding€estate€taxes€that€would€be€due€upon€Clemmyeððs€death.€€Jack€and€Ratner€represented€toÏClemmye€that,€if€she€transferred€her€stock€to€Jack,€the€stock€would€be€returned€to€Clemmye€in€theÏevent€Jack€predeceased€Clemmye.€€In€November€1988,€Jack€presented€Clemmye€with€a€stockÏpower€for€all€of€Clemmyeððs€stock€in€Panchoððs€Management,€Inc.€(ð ðPMIðð),€one€of€the€PanchoððsÏcorporations,× ƒ/ ××  ×€with€instructions€that€Clemmye€sign€the€stock€power€and€return€it€to€Jack.€ÏClemmye€allegedly€signed€the€stock€power€but€did€not€deliver€it€to€Jack.€€Instead,€she€retained€theÏstock€power€and€still€had€it€in€her€possession€at€the€time€she€filed€the€complaint.€€At€some€point€inÏ1988€or€1989,€however,€Jack€allegedly€traced€and€forged€Clemmyeððs€signature€to€another€stockÏpower€for€the€PMI€stock,€and€he€gave€the€forged€document€to€Ratner.€€Ratner,€using€the€forgedÏdocument,€had€new€PMI€stock€certificates€prepared€listing€Jack€as€the€owner.€€In€November€1989,ÍRatner€filed€a€Tennessee€gift€tax€return€on€behalf€of€Clemmye€relative€to€the€stock.€€The€complaintÏstated€that€Ratner€did€not€file€a€federal€gift€tax€return.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Clemmyeððs€complaint,€Jack€later€admitted€the€forgery€and€promised€toÏreturn€the€stock€to€Clemmye.€€In€June€1993,€however,€Jack€died€in€Memphis€at€the€age€of€sixty.€ÏWhen€Jackððs€Will€was€probated,€Clemmye€ð ðfirst€learned€that€Jack€had€not€transferred€the€PMIÏstock€into€her€name€to€correct€the€forgery€nor€did€he€leave€the€PMI€stock€to€her€as€he€and€RatnerÏhad€promised.ððÌÌà àAfter€filing€the€foregoing€complaint€on€behalf€of€Clemmye,€Tual€learned€that€someÏof€the€complaintððs€allegations€were€untrue.€€In€particular,€Tual€retained€a€handwriting€expert€andÏlearned€that,€contrary€to€Clemmyeððs€allegation,€the€stock€power€was€not€forged.€€Accordingly,ÏTual€filed€an€amended€complaint€which€omitted€any€allegations€of€forgery.ÌÌà àTual€also€learned€that,€contrary€to€the€complaintððs€allegation,€Ratner€had€filed€aÏfederal€gift€tax€return€relative€to€Clemmyeððs€transfer€of€the€PMI€stock.€€A€copy€of€the€federal€giftÏtax€return€was€contained€in€the€same€file€where€Tual€previously€found€the€Tennessee€gift€taxÏreturn,€and€this€file€had€been€in€Tualððs€possession€for€approximately€two€months€at€the€time€heÏfiled€the€original€complaint.€€In€accordance€with€this€discovery,€the€amended€complaint€filed€byÏTual€also€omitted€any€allegation€that€Ratner€had€failed€to€file€a€federal€gift€tax€return.ÌÌà àIn€January€1995,€Ratner€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€Clemmyeððs€complaint€on€theÏground€that€the€action€was€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitation€applicable€to€legalÏmalpractice€actions.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„104€(Supp.€1989).€€The€trial€court€granted€RatnerððsÏmotion€and€dismissed€the€amended€complaint€with€prejudice.ÌÌà àAfter€dismissal€of€the€action,€Ratner€filed€a€motion€for€sanctions€pursuant€to€RuleÍ11€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€In€support€of€the€motion,€Ratner€contended€that€theÏoriginal€complaint€filed€by€Tual€and€Clemmye€was€not€well„grounded€in€fact€and€that€a€reasonableÏpre„filing€investigation€would€have€revealed€no€basis€for€filing€the€lawsuit.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€Rule€11€motion,€Ratner€focused€primarily€on€fourÏmisrepresentations€contained€in€the€original€complaint€which,€Ratner€contended,€a€reasonable€pre„filing€investigation€would€have€revealed€to€be€false:ÌÌÓÓà8 à1.à0 àIn€1988,€Jack,€as€a€part€of€his€efforts€to€get€ClemmyeððsÏstock€in€Panchoððs,€employed€Ratner€to€prepareÏcomprehensive€estate€plans€for€Jack€and€Clemmye.€ÏClemmye€did€not€request€or€direct€Jack€to€employ€Ratner€orÏto€prepare€an€estate€plan€for€her.€€Clemmye€had€noÏknowledge€of€any€estate€plan€being€prepared€for€her.ÌÌà8 à2.à0 àAt€some€point€in€1988€or€1989,€Jack€traced€and€forgedÏClemmyeððs€name€to€another€stock€power€for€the€PMI€stockÏand€gave€it€to€Ratner.€€Jack€admitted€this€forgery€toÏClemmye€in€1989€and€promised€her€that€he€would€take€theÏsteps€to€correct€the€forgery€and€that€he€would€give€the€stockÏback€to€Clemmye.ÌÌà8 àà0 à....ÌÌà8 àà0 àEven€though€Clemmye€did€not€deliver€the€stock€power€forÏher€PMI€stock€to€either€Jack€or€Ratner,€Jack€and€Ratner,Ïusing€the€forged€stock€power,€prepared€or€caused€to€beÏprepared...€new€stock€certificates...€listing€Jack€as€theÏowner€of€the€14,970€shares€of€PMI€stock.ÌÌà8 à3.à0 àRatner€did€not€file€a€federal€gift€tax€return.ÌÌà8 à4.à0 àWhen€Jackððs€Will€was€probated,€Clemmye€first€learned€thatÏJack€had€not€transferred€the€PMI€stock€into€her€name€toÏcorrect€the€forgery€nor€did€he€leave€the€PMI€stock€to€her€asÏhe€and€Ratner€had€promised.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAs€previously€indicated,€when€Tual€learned€that€allegations€2€and€3€were€incorrect,Ïhe€filed€an€amended€complaint€omitting€the€allegations.€€The€amended€complaint€also€omittedÍallegation€1,€that€ð ðClemmye€had€no€knowledge€of€any€estate€plan€being€prepared€for€her.ðð× ƒ0 ××  ×€€At€theÏhearing€below,€however,€Ratner€insisted€that€these€false€allegations€in€the€original€complaintÏsubjected€Tual€and€Clemmye€to€sanctions€under€Rule€11.€€Ratner€also€contended€that€allegation€4,€aÏpart€of€which€was€repeated€in€the€amended€complaint,× ƒ1 ××  ×€was€sanctionable.€€During€the€discoveryÏprocess,€Clemmye€gave€a€lengthy€deposition€during€which€she€revealed€that,€when€Jack€made€hisÏwill,€the€will€was€placed€in€a€safe€in€Clemmyeððs€home,€where€it€remained€until€Jackððs€death.€ÏBased€on€this€evidence,€Ratner€contended€that€Clemmyeððs€claim€that€she€did€not€know€the€contentsÏof€Jackððs€will€prior€to€his€death€was€incredible€and€defied€belief.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€Ratnerððs€motion€for€sanctions,€and€this€appeal€followed.€€OurÏreview€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€Rule€11€motion€is€under€an€ð ðabuse€of€discretionðð€standard.€Ïò òòòKrug€v.€Krugó óóó,€838€S.W.2d€197,€205€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€ò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòState€ex€rel.€ThompsonÏv.€Walkeró óóó,€No.€01A01„9311„CR„00486,€1994€WL€164144,€at€*4€(Tenn.€App.€May€4,€1994),Ïò òòòperm.€app.€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€Aug.€29,€1994).€€Our€review€is€governed€by€this€deferential€standardÏbecause€the€issue€of€whether€a€Rule€11€violation€has€occurred€often€requires€the€trial€court€to€makeÏfact„intensive,€close€calls€regarding€the€reasonableness€of€the€attorneyððs€(and€clientððs)€conduct.€Ïò òòòKrugó óóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€205€(citing€ò òòòCooter€&€Gell€v.€Hartmarx€Corp.ó óóó,€496€U.S.€384,€404Ï(1990));€ò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòBinkley€v.€Cannonó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9408„CH„00401,€1995€WL€66927,€at€*5Ï(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€17,€1995)€(ð ðA€Rule€11€violation€involves€fact€intensive€findings;€therefore,€greatÏdeference€will€be€given€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ðð).ÌÌà àWhen€Tual€and€Clemmye€filed€the€complaint€in€June€1994,€Rule€11€provided€inÏpertinent€part€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€signature€of€an€attorney€or€party€constitutes€a€certificate€by€himÏthat€he€has€read€the€pleading,€motion,€or€other€paper;€that€to€the€bestÏof€his€knowledge,€information,€and€belief€formed€after€reasonableÏinquiry,€it€is€well€grounded€in€fact€and€is€warranted€by€existing€lawÏor€a€good€faith€argument€for€the€extension,€modification,€or€reversalÏof€existing€law,€and€that€it€is€not€interposed€for€any€improperÏpurpose,€such€as€to€harass€or€to€cause€unnecessary€delay€or€needlessÏincrease€in€the€cost€of€litigation.€€If€a€pleading,€motion,€or€otherÏpaper€is€signed€in€violation€of€this€rule,€the€court,€upon€motion€orÏupon€its€own€initiative,€shall€impose€upon€the€person€who€signed€it,Ïa€represented€party,€or€both,€an€appropriate€sanction,€which€mayÏinclude€an€order€to€pay€the€other€party€or€parties€the€amount€of€theÏreasonable€expenses€incurred€because€of€the€filing€of€the€pleading,Ïmotion,€or€Ô&  Ôother€paper,€including€a€reasonable€attorneyððs€fee.ÌÌÓÓÌT.R.C.P.€11.× ƒ2 ××  ×Ô'  ÔÌÌà àRatnerððs€Rule€11€motion€primarily€was€premised€on€the€argument€that€Tual€failed€toÏmake€a€reasonable€pre„filing€inquiry€into€the€factual€basis€of€Clemmyeððs€complaint.€€In€ò òòòAndrewsÏv.€Bibleó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€284€(Tenn.€1991),€our€supreme€court€set€forth€the€test€to€be€applied€inÏdetermining€whether€an€attorneyððs€conduct€is€sanctionable€under€Rule€11:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€test€to€be€applied€in€deciding€whether€an€attorneyððsÏconduct€is€sanctionable,€is€one€of€objective€reasonableness€under€allÏthe€circumstances,€[ò òòòBusiness€Guides,€Inc.€v.€ChromaticÏCommunications€Enters.ó óóó,€498€U.S.€533,€551,€111€S.€Ct.€922,Ï933€(1991)],€and€the€reasonableness€of€the€attorneyððs€belief€must€beÏassessed€in€light€of€the€circumstances€existing€at€the€time€theÏdocument€in€question€was€signed.€€[Schwarzer,€ò òòòSanctions€UnderÏthe€New€Federal€Rule€11„„A€Closer€Lookó óóó,€104€F.R.D.€181,Ï189€(1985)]....€€ð ð[T]he€Court€is€expected€to€avoid€using€theÍwisdom€of€hindsight€and€should€test€the€signerððs€conduct€byÏinquiring€what€was€reasonable€to€believe€at€the€time€[of€signing].ððÌÌÓÓÌò òòòAndrews€v.€Bibleó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€288€(quoting€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€advisory€committeeððs€noteÏto€1983€amendment).ÌÌà àFederal€courts€have€noted€that€the€reasonableness€of€the€attorneyððs€pre„filing€inquiryÏmay€depend€upon€the€following€factors:ÌÌÓÓà8 à1.à0 à[T]he€time€available€to€the€signor€for€investigation;ÌÌà8 à2.à0 à[W]hether€the€signor€had€to€rely€on€a€client€for€informationÏas€to€the€facts€underlying€the€pleading,€motion,€or€otherÏpaper;ÌÌà8 à3.à0 à[W]hether€the€pleading,€motion,€or€other€paper€was€based€onÏa€plausible€view€of€the€law;€orÌÌà8 à4.à0 à[W]hether€the€signor€depended€on€forwarding€counsel€orÏanother€member€of€the€bar.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòCentury€Prods.€v.€Sutteró óóó,€837€F.2d€247,€250„51€(6th€Cir.€1988)€(citing€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11Ïadvisory€committeeððs€note€to€1983€amendment).× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€Ratnerððs€motion€for€sanctions€against€Tual€pursuant€to€Rule€11.€ÏWhen€Tual€was€researching€Clemmyeððs€case€in€preparation€for€filing€the€complaint,€it€becameÏobvious€that€a€statute€of€limitations€problem€existed€with€regard€to€any€possible€malpractice€claimÏagainst€Ratner.€€In€fact,€the€underlying€malpractice€action€was€ultimately€dismissed€on€the€groundÏof€the€statute€of€limitations.€€ð ðThe€time€available€for€an€investigation€prior€to€the€expiration€of€aÍstatute€of€limitations€is€a€factor€that€obviously€should€enter€into€the€analysisðð€of€whether€anÏattorneyððs€pre„filing€inquiry€was€objectively€reasonable.€€ò òòòAndrews€v.€Bibleó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€atÏ288„89.€€ð ðThe€shorter€the€time€the€more€reasonable€it€is€for€an€attorney€to€rely€on€[his]€client.ðð€Ïò òòòCTC€Imports€&€Exports€v.€Nigerian€Petroleum€Corp.ó óóó,€951€F.2d€573,€579€(3d€Cir.Ï1991),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€504€U.S.€914€(1992).ÌÌà à€During€the€pre„filing€period,€therefore,€Tual€relied€in€part€on€the€representations€ofÏhis€client,€81„year„old€Clemmye.€€Although€Clemmyeððs€credibility€was€called€into€question€by€theÏsubsequent€revelation€that€the€stock€power€was€not€a€forgery,€this€development€is€not€dispositiveÏof€the€motion€for€sanctions€against€Tual.€€In€the€absence€of€some€further€evidence€of€attorney€fault,Ïan€attorney€cannot€be€sanctioned€because€post„filing€developments€cause€the€trial€court€to€questionÏthe€credibility€of€the€attorneyððs€client.€€ò òòòIn€re€Big€Rapids€Mall€Assocs.ó óóó,€98€F.3d€926,€932€(6thÏCir.€1996).× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Moreover,€although€Rule€11€imposed€no€continuing€obligation€upon€Tual€to€correctÏthe€complaint,× ƒ5 ××  ×€his€prompt€amendment€of€the€complaint€to€delete€the€incorrect€allegations€certainlyÏweighs€in€his€favor.€€ò òòòCf.ó óóó€ò òòòBinkley€v.€Cannonó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9408„CH„00401,€1995€WLÏ66927,€at€**6„7€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€17,€1995)€(affirming€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€sanctionsÏagainst€appellant€attorneys€where,€even€after€advised€of€their€error,€attorneys€did€not€attempt€toÏcorrect€error).ÌÌà àDespite€her€credibility€problems,€we€also€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€toÍimpose€sanctions€against€Clemmye.€€In€her€deposition€given€in€June€1994,€Clemmye€testified€that,Ïsometime€in€1989,€Jack€confessed€to€her€that€he€had€forged€Clemmyeððs€name€to€a€stock€power€byÏtracing€her€signature€from€another€document.€€During€the€deposition,€Clemmye€did€not€waver€fromÏthis€testimony,€and€she€produced€a€document€which€she€claimed€was€the€forged€stock€power.€ÏLater,€Clemmye€filed€an€amended€complaint€omitting€the€forgery€allegations€when€a€handwritingÏexpert€opined€that€the€stock€power€was€not€a€forgery.€€Nevertheless,€other€than€references€to€theÏhandwriting€expertððs€opinion,€the€record€contains€no€evidence€to€show€that,€at€the€time€theÏcomplaint€was€signed,€Clemmyeððs€forgery€allegations€were€not€well„grounded€in€fact€to€the€best€ofÏClemmyeððs€knowledge,€information,€and€belief.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€to€impose€sanctions€pursuant€to€Rule11,€the€trial€courtÏshould€resolve€all€doubts€in€favor€of€the€signer€of€the€pleading.€€ò òòòVandeventerv.€WabashÏNatððl€Corp.ó óóó,€893€F.€Supp.€827,€840€(N.D.€Ind.€1995).€€Further,€in€imposing€Rule€11€sanctions,Ïthe€trial€court€should€not€pass€judgment€on€the€merits€of€the€underlying€action.€€ò òòòCTC€Imports€&ÏExports€v.€Nigerian€Petroleum€Corp.ó óóó,€951€F.2d€573,€579€(3d€Cir.€1991),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,Ï504€U.S.€914€(1992);€ò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòState€ex€rel.€Thompson€v.€Walkeró óóó,€No.€01A01„9311„CR„00486,€1994€WL€164144,€at€*4€(Tenn.€App.€May4,€1994)€(noting€that€failure€on€merits€does€notÏmake€claim€frivolous€ò òòòper€seó óóó€under€Rule€11),€ò òòòperm.€app.€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€Aug.€29,€1994).€ÏUnder€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdeclining€to€impose€sanctions€against€Clemmye.ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€order€denying€sanctions€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÏto€appellant€Marvin€L.€Ratner,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à___________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)