WPCA  >9Z3Xt.C`fy!i Fd7\c""`z Ο!e) Gg;}M>q@xp0.E~G"||%XqٓBDW@E]i*?;%-#]<'-_]C)/\=b7WԹi$ ۡ՝uf{\]˒}QbpN vޭQsYc}Hbѹ%}"%cځ[ם~S,G0g_nSl`fzvh- rCE%_EcZ]j8DsnHǭlM'8>G@;*&dluO [$Yb=֚XG+'$~WyhYSQ*X-1ݼ 4h}J|_ɝP@C^3dDDlL.XlhSnY}A~$Nڙ|u O]Kb#\U4N% %s 0:y 0U 0 0 0 0o 0( 0 0 0/ 0 0 0f 0 0 0m 0 0 0> 0 0 0[ 0  0 0Y 0 0 0! 0 0] 0 0> 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0y$ 03% 02& 07& 0:3' 0Ym' 0_' 0 %( 0/) 0* B*, D/, D+- 0;-U6A/ D/w/ 0/ 06t0 00 0:1 0^1 0<J2 1e2U->2U*)3 0S3UN3J4E5555 6^ 9w'94+9?9N9 1u; 0Nf< 72<< m<N< B= 0D==b= c@-u@ @@@@@ 0c@\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK8<6X9`(Courier NewKSA\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K8<6X9`(Courier NewKSA\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K8<6X9`(Courier NewKSA\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 75(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?B%2A`Arial?  SA\  `&Times New RomanS76(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For79(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?B%2A`Arial?  SA\  `&Times New RomanS76(X75+ ` hp x 5  <6X9`(Courier New4)2dxd0KS.SampleK8<6X9`(Courier NewKSA\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK8<6X9`(Courier NewKSA\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(Y(2΄$ !USUS.,  XX      0  ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  COAprefiling P.J.Brasher KrugEldridgenonfrivolousLongmire T]heBratcher C΄$USUS.,XX      2    _Tothispoint,Ms.Scotthadbeenrepresentedbycounselretainedbyherinsurancecarrier.  C΄$USUS.,XX      3    _Ms.ScottsRule11motionwasinitiallygrantedbydefaultbecauseneitherMs.CampbellnorMs.Brasher  appearedatthehearingonthemotion.Ahearingwassetondamages.Ms.Brashermovedtosetasidethatorder,and t onOctober31,2002,thetrialcourtsetasidetheorderuponashowingbyMs.Brasherthatanofficecomputer 8 malfunctionhaderasedtheoriginalhearingdateandthereforesatisfactorilyexplainedherabsencefromthehearing. L ThecourtorderedreimbursementtoMs.Scottforhertimespentincourtforthetwohearings.#/ qdj/esly3o3|x  C΄$USUS.,XX      4    _Ms.Brasherstatedthataftertheotherdriversinsurancecompanyacceptedresponsibilityshesentanoticeto  Ms.ScottsattorneythatMs.CampbellwouldnonsuitheractionagainstMs.Scott.Onthedayofthesummary t judgmenthearing,sheinquirediftheattorneywhoappearedatthehearinghadreceivedherconfirmation,andhereplied 8 negatively.Theyagreed,underthecircumstances,tohandlethedismissalthroughthesummaryjudgmentmotion.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(O$Pi)U d(#$  0    C΄$USUS.,XX      1    _DTenn.R.Ct.App.10states:  8  ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodify 8 theactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhaveno L precedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated   MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany  reasoninanyunrelatedcase.#D#HN;F14 ##Xd#SearchTerm(;3$2#  0  .3  0  !USUS.,  __DXXXX  DXDX  [}@ #DXXDx#D <XDXINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#DXXD <#DXDXԈ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust11,2003 L #DXXD# DXDXLINDACAMPBELLv.OPALA.CARROLL,etal.#DXXD"#  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforRobertsonCounty  J @@No.9657RossH.Hicks,Judge  6 @@*AVF) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200300295COAR3CVFiledDecember10,2003 #XXXDXM#DXXXX    AVF) ` dE<|` A }     ThisappealinvolvesthedenialbythetrialcourtofamotionforRule11sanctions.Therequestfor x  sanctionswasmadeprosebydefendantMicheleScottagainstplaintiffandhercounselforfailing d toperformanadequateprefilinginvestigationasrequiredunderRule11.Weaffirmthejudgment P ofthetrialcourt. <  @SSTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight:JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt d @ AffirmedandRemanded  P PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J., ( M.S.,andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined.  MicheleNealScott,Springfield,Tennessee,ProSe.  ChristineBrasher,Springfield,Tennessee,fortheappelleeandcrossappellant,LindaCampbell. t   MEMORANDUMOPINION Y W#  1       L  #XXXDX'#DXXXX  OnMarch10,2001,LindaCampbellwasridinginacardrivenbyOpalCarroll.Ms.Carroll $"t! attemptedtoturnrightfromthelefthandlaneintoaparkinglot,andhercarwashitbythatof #`" MichelleScott,whowasdrivingintherighthandlane.OnDecember11,2001,Ms.Campbell,the #L# injuredpassenger,filedalawsuittorecoverforherinjuriesandnamedbothdriversasdefendants. $8 $ Inhercomplaint,Ms.CampbellallegedthatMs.Carrollfailedtoyieldtherightofway,otherwise %$!% failedtouseduecare,andwasnegligent.ShealsoallegedthatMs.Scottwasnegligentinfailing &"& [} [8XXdd8 [  _touseduecaretoavoidthecollisionandfailingtogivewarning.Thecomplaintallegedthatthe  actionsofbothdefendantsweretheproximatecauseofMs.Campbellsinjuries.    OnApril8,2002,thedefendantMichelleScott,throughcounsel,answeredanddeniedany t negligence.Theansweralsostatedthatshe pleadsandreliesuponthedoctrineofcomparativefault ` tobeappliedtoallpartiesinthisaction.Aweeklater,shefiledamotionforsummaryjudgment L  seekingdismissaloftheactionagainstheralongwithsupportingaffidavits.Anagreedorderwas 8  enteredonJune24,2002,reflectingahearingheldMay28,2002,andrecountingthattheplaintiff, $ t LindaCampbell,hadagreednottoopposeMs.Scottsmotionforsummaryjudgmentimmediately  ` priortothehearing.Afterconsideringtheargumentsandevidence,thecourtagreedtotheentryof  L  theorderanddismissedtheactionagainstMs.Scott.  8    Twomonthsafterentryoftheorderdismissingtheactionagainsther,Ms.Scott,actingpro   se,H W#  2      ׀filedamotionseekingsanctionsagainstMs.Campbellandherattorney,Ms.Brasher.Ms.Scott   insistedthatMs.CampbellandMs.Brasherfailedtoconductacompleteevaluationofthecaseprior   tofilingandthatiftheyhad,Ms.Scottwouldnothavebeensued.#XXXDXP #DXXXXInhermotionforsanctions,Ms.   Scottalleged: p 8   ` 1.)PlaintiffandhercounselhaveassertedclaimsintheirComplaintthat H lackedevidentiarysupportandthatwerenotwarrantedbyexistinglaw(orbyanon 4 frivolousargumentfortheextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw)orthe  p establishmentofanewlaw; \   8   ` 2.)Byfilingthefrivolousclaims,Counselhasunreasonablyandvexatiously 4 multipliedtheseproceedings;and    8   ` 3.)Thefilingofthefrivolousclaimsevidencesbadfaith.   #XXXDXl#AXXXX  ThemotionreferredtoTenn.R.S.Ct.8,DR7102(1)and(2),butthememorandumin  supportrelieduponTenn.R.Civ.P.11( Rule11")althoughitalsoassertedthatapartyseeking l Rule11sanctionscouldcombinethatrequestwitharequestforothersanctionsthathaveno safe X  harborprovision. D!   #l!   #XXXAX#Afterahearing,thetrialcourtdeniedMs.ScottsrequestforRule11sanctions,J W#  3      ׀findingthat:  8   ` [T]hecomplaintwasbasicallyastandardcomplaintallegingfaulttobothMs.  ScottandthecodefendantMs.Carroll.t   8      8   ` ThatonMarch22,2002,AID,Ms.Scottsinsurancecarrier,solicitedan L  unlimitedextensioninwhichtofileananswertothecomplaintandthatMs.Brasher, 8  counselfortheplaintiff,agreedtotheextensionandfurtheragreedtoprovidethe $ t defendantthirty(30)daysadvancenoticeifshewasrequiredtofileanyanswer.The  ` extensionwasneverrevoked. L    8   ` FurtherthecourtfindsthatonApril15,2002,lessthanonemonthafterthe $  unlimitedextensionwasgranted,FrankThomasfiledaMotionforSummary   JudgmentonbehalfofAIDInsuranceandthedefendant[Ms.Scott].ThatonMay   5th,counselfortheplaintiffdraftedalettertoattorneyFrankThomasagreeingto   dismisstheclaimastoMs.ScottandthatonJune24,2002,anAgreedOrderof   Dismissalwasentered.p   8   ` TheCourtfindsthatattorney,ChristineBrasher,actedinamannerconsistent H withanattorneypursuinganautomobileaccidentclaimonbehalfofherclient,and 4 thatnoconductcomplainedofbytheproselitigantwouldsubjecttheplaintiffor  p counseltosanctionsunderthefactsandcircumstancessotestifiedtointhismatter. \    AXXXX  StandardofReview#XXAXg #AXXX 4   #XXXAX #AXXXX0  Ourreviewofthetrialcourt'srulingonaRule11motionisunderanabuseofdiscretion (#(# standard.#XXXAX;!#AXXXXKrugv.Krug,#XXXAX"#AXXXXԀ838S.W.2d197,205(Tenn.Ct.App.1992)#XXXAXb"#AXXXX.Anabuseofdiscretionoccurs  whenthedecisionofthelowercourthasnobasisinlaworfactandisthereforearbitrary,illogical,  orunconscionable.#XXXAX"#AXXXXStatev.Brown&WilliamsonTobaccoCorp.,#XXXAX##AXXXXԀ18S.W.3d186,191(Tenn.2000)#XXXAXF$#AXXXX.#XXXAX$#AXXXX  Undertheabuseofdiscretionstandard,atrialcourt'sruling"willbeupheldsolongasreasonable l mindscandisagreeasto[the]proprietyofthedecisionmade."Eldridgev.Eldridge,#XXXAX$#AXXXXԀ42S.W.3d82, X  85(Tenn.2001)#XXXAX$&#AXXXX.#XXXAX&#AXXXXTheabuseofdiscretionstandarddoesnotpermittheappellatecourttosubstitute D! itsjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt#XXXAX&#AXXXX. 0"  #XXXAX'#AXXXX  OurreviewofRule11decisionsisgovernedunderthisdeferentialstandardsincethe $X" questionofwhetheraRule11violationhasoccurredrequiresthetrialcourttomakehighlyfact $D #  intensivedeterminationsregardingthereasonablenessoftheattorney'sconduct.#XXXAX(#AXXXXKrug,#XXXAX)#AXXXXԀ838S.W.2d %0!$ at205.#XXXAX)#ԀWereviewthetrialcourt'sfindingsoffactwithapresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.  P.13(d)AXXXX.   @JJ& Analysis  t #XXXAX*# % \ %\v+AXXXX0  Tenn.R.Civ.P.11.02#XXXAX+#AXXXXԀprovides:L (#(# 8  Bypresentingtothecourt(whetherbysigning,filing,submitting,orlateradvocating) $ t apleading,writtenmotion,orotherpaper,anattorneyorunrepresentedpartyis  ` certifyingthattothebestoftheperson'sknowledge,information,andbelief,formed  L  afteraninquiryreasonableunderthecircumstances,  8      8  (1)itisnotbeingpresentedforanyimproperpurpose,suchastoharassortocause   unnecessarydelayorneedlessincreaseinthecostoflitigation;       8  (2)theclaims,defenses,andotherlegalcontentionsthereinarewarrantedbyexisting   laworbyanonfrivolousargumentfortheextension,modification,orreversalof p existinglawortheestablishmentofnewlaw; \     8  (3)theallegationsandotherfactualcontentionshaveevidentiarysupportor,if 4 specificallysoidentified,arelikelytohaveevidentiarysupportafterareasonable  p opportunityforfurtherinvestigationordiscovery;and  \     8  (4)thedenialoffactualcontentionsarewarrantedontheevidenceor,ifspecifically 4 soidentified,arereasonablybasedonalackofinformationorbelief.       #XXXAX+#AXXXX  #XXXAX_2# AXXXXTheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldin#XXXAX2#Andrewsv.Bible,AXXXXԀ812S.W.2d284,287(Tenn.1991),#XXXAX03#AXXXX  thatwhen#XXXAX3#% Z %Z3AXXXXԀdeterminingifsanctionsareinorder,thetrialcourtmustuseanobjectivetestof  reasonableness.Thetesttobeappliedindecidingwhetheranattorney'sconductissanctionableis  oneofobjectivereasonablenessunderallthecircumstances,andthereasonablenessoftheattorney's l beliefmustbeassessed#XXXAX4#AXXXXinlightofthecircumstancesexistingatthetimethedocumentinquestion X  wassigned.#XXXAX5#AXXXXԀ#XXXAX6#AXXXXAndrews,#XXXAX6#AXXXXԀ812S.W.2dat288.#XXXAX!7#AXXXXԀWhetheranattorneyhasmadesufficientinquiriesinlight D! ofthecircumstancesisafactualdetermination.#XXXAXv7#Theevidencehereindoesnotpreponderateagainst 0"  thetrialcourtsfindingsoffact. #l!   WhenMs.CampbellfirstcontactedMs.Brasher,shehadbeeninjuredintheaccident,was $D # incurringmedicalbills,andwasanxioustoresolvepaymentofthosebills.Ms.Brashercontacted %0!$ orattemptedtocontactinsurancecompaniesforbothdriverstryingtoascertainwhichwasgoingto &"% paythebillsMs.Campbellhadincurred.Afterseveralmonths,shehadnodefinitiveanswer.Ms. '#& Brasherhadthepolicereportfromtheaccidentaswellasinformationfromherclient.She (#' researchedthelawofcomparativefault.Toprotectherclientsinterests,shefiledsuitnamingboth )$( driversasdefendants,havingconcludedthequestionsofwhetherMs.Scottwasnegligentand |*%) whetheranyconductonherpartcontributedtoMs.Campbellsinjurieswerequestionstobe h+&* determinedbyajury.ShefeltMs.Scottwasunderadutyofduecareandthattherewerequestions  regardingbreachofthatduty. ItwasalsomyunderstandingasanattorneyforthePlaintiffthatI  hadtoputtheseissuesonthetablesinceafterthreemonthsofattemptingtoaddressthisissue  directlyandwithoutlitigationIhadnotbeenabletogetanyconfirmationontheissueofliability. t   Immediatelyafterthesuitwasfiled,Ms.BrasheragaincontactedMs.Scottsinsurance L  company,whichnotifiedheritwasthatcompanysunderstandingthattheotherdriverwasatfault 8  andthatherinsurancecompanywouldaccepttotalresponsibility.Later,Ms.Brasheragreedtogive $ t Ms.Scottsinsurancecompanyanopenunlimitedextensionoftimeinwhichtofileananswer.The  ` purposeofthatagreementwastoprovidemoretimeforresolutionoftheissuesbeforetheinsurance  L  companyretainedalawyerinthematter.Ms.Brashercontinuedtopursuedefinitiveresponsesfrom  8  eachoftheinsurancecompanies.ShewaseventuallytoldthatMs.Carrollsinsurancecompany $  wouldacceptliability.     Bythistime,Ms.Scott,throughcounsel,filedhermotionforsummaryjudgment.   Immediatelypriortothehearingonthatmotion,Ms.BrasherandMs.Scottsattorneyagreedto   dismissMs.Scottonthemerits.O W#  4      ׀Theyannouncedthisagreementtothecourt,andanorderwaslater p draftedbyMs.Scottsattorney,signedbycounsel,andenteredbythecourt. \   AsMs.Brasherdescribedit,shedidnothaveconfirmationthattheotherdriversinsurance 4 companywasgoingtoacceptfullresponsibilityforherclientsinjuriesbeforeMs.Scottfelt  p compelledtobeginherdefense.AlthoughMs.Scottwasnotrequiredtorespond,becauseofthe  \ extensiongivenbyMs.Brasher,theattorneyretainedbyherinsurancecompanypursueddismissal H throughsummaryjudgment,apparentlyatMs.Scottsinsistence.Atthehearing,Ms.Scottstated 4 shehadneveragreedtotheextensionforansweringwhichhadbeengrantedherthroughher   insurancecompany.     Inthecircumstancespresent,clearlythetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninfailingto  grantRule11sanctionsagainsteitherMs.Campbellorherattorney,Ms.Brasher,andwetherefore  affirmitsdecision. l   WenotethatMs.Scottsoughtsanctionsagainstboththeattorney,Ms.Brasher,andthe D! client,Ms.Campbell.Theplaintiff,Ms.Campbell,hasmovedthiscourttodeclarethisappeal 0"  frivolousandtoawardherattorneysfeespursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.271122.Ms.Brasherhas #l! notfiledasimilarrequestonherownbehalf.AXXXXԀ#XXXAXI#Anappealisfrivolousifitisdevoidofmeritorifit $X" hasnoreasonablechanceofsuccess.Wakefieldv.Longmire,54S.W.3d300,304(Tenn.Ct.App. $D # 2001).AXXXXHavingcarefullyreviewedtherecord,weagreewiththeplaintiff,Ms.Campbell,thatthe %0!$ appealisfrivolousand,therefore,we#XXXAXJ#AXXXXgrantherrequestforattorneysfeestotheextentsheactually &"% incurredsuchfeesinthisappeal.#XXXAXK#AXXXXԀObviously,Ms.Brasheralsoappearedonherownbehalfand,since  shehasnotrequestedfeesforherownrepresentation,wepresumethefeesattributableto  representationofMs.Campbellreflectonlyaportionofthetimespentonthisappeal.#XXXAX?L#AXXXXԀInaddition,  thecostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,Ms.Scott,andthecaseisremandedtothetrial t courtforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.#XXXAXM#ԀAXXXX ` #XXXAXN#DXXXX   `     h     ___________________________________  `    `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE#XXXDXO#AXXXX  L  #XXXAXHP#