ÿWPC xeÿ-‘¿‚†S‰—SR6 hó½%kˆy¹i`½DÞ½eÈÅ^[÷ =XdÙSÌrá ¶Ùvðøµ¶¤¿|x>ÿÁJ†ì• ”ZVSªSÞDq¸Yj¤lô¡ö×ëk›û¨Þ¶=qµ(upeÀoy½?sëÃs:']'zyzë)¦<ø«¦i´Ñe~2è•f±—¯²å¶pdÝÓªr"‚ý …X]UjeÔ­;YTÑs‡è»\<_±šªm׃¿rÁµ“AõB“%²m§mçÄ‘Ýc–ð²`"¢˜§yËUvç$±šï¡žG¢Ðx‚ÐÀæ¦FkeŽkGúXM Vª÷a}$’ò²©ŠG¼z‘#Õõ·P»¶¡53†Ïì¥\+iГ^‹´Z¾*æØåà–©ôUÑ­IX×V¸*ÌoÒtŸÚ{íOõ“nZ³Éï¨À~ú26k:t“;÷ÆW>®Íb§û=”/®X½Ö”4õÆ·ö®åsíp'$b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöw D4Nb zqÒë½ m¿ #ÉÖ „Ÿ Æ#ÆéƯÆu 0D;N k‹Eööööööööööööööööööööööööbøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø 0ë Bëë 0¤ D5¬ D-á 0K ASYƬ 0¤r 0D A«Z»E[/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.b014c13|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 zÝ ƒR)E$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«Éò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Since€the€Final€Judgment€makes€no€reference€to€Ms.€Hayesðð€claims€against€the€United€States€Bankruptcy€CourtÐ ° Ðor€Judge€Cook,€we€can€only€assume€these€defendants€were€dismissed€from€the€lawsuit€prior€to€entry€of€the€final€judgment.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó EFFIESTRUTTONStruttonsDetainerRothbergerSuttons COALoudon A]t CrimMoormanAldridge OnohEngg aÝ ƒR)E$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô«Éò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€time€in€which€to€file€a€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hadÐ ° Ðnot€yet€expired€in€the€òòYoungóó€case€at€the€time€the€Opinion€in€the€present€case€was€released.- ù-(|G2½Ž$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã­ò»»Ô d(|3?n$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?n$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼N»»»ÔÑ8€qXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îMlNÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼N»îîMl #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€September€16,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XqX»¼NÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼N»XXq #ÔEFFIE€LOUISE€HAYES€v.€ROGER€STRUTTON,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XqX»¼NÔó óÐ Ò " ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ#†¼N»XXq„#ÔÔ€XqX»¼NÔAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ Ò " Ðà@@øøìàNo.€03C227€€€€€€L.€Marie€Williams,€JudgeÐ ¾   ÐÌññFILED€OCTOBER€27,€Ô_Ô2003ññÔ_ÔÐ –æ  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‚Ò  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„00938„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ }Í  ÐÌÓ  ÓßA€V) °°` dE<T` Aßó óÐ U¥ ÐÌÌAfter€two€adverse€decisions€in€the€Hamilton€County€General€Sessions€Court€and€an€adverse€decisionÐ <Œ Ðin€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Tennessee,€Effie€Louise€Hayes€(ð ðMs.Ð (x ÐHayesðð€or€ð ðPlaintiffðð)€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€lawsuit€in€the€Hamilton€County€Circuit€Court€making€essentiallyÐ d Ðthe€same€allegations€as€in€her€previous€lawsuits.€€The€Circuit€Court€dismissed€that€lawsuit€afterÐ P Ðconcluding€the€claims€were€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata.€€Ms.€Hayes€appealed€that€decisionÐ ì< Ðto€this€Court€and€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€was€affirmed.€€Ms.€Hayes€sought€further€review,Ð Ø( Ðbut€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€her€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€Ms.Ð Ä ÐHayes€then€filed€the€present€lawsuit,€òòpro€seóó,€making€the€same€claims€that€were€made€in€her€previousÐ ° Ðlawsuits.€€Once€again,€the€Circuit€Court€concluded€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata€barred€the€claims.€€Ms.Ð œì ÐHayes€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€and€further€conclude€this€appeal€isÐ ˆØ Ðfrivolous.€€We€remand€this€case€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€a€determination€of€damages€in€accordanceÐ tÄ Ðwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122.Ð `° ÐÌÌà@œ œ ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€ˆÐ $"t! Ðà@â â ìàCircuit€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.€ˆÐ #`" Ðó óÌòòÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ Ô%$!% ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð À&"& ÐÌÌEffie€Louise€Hayes,€òòpro€seóó€Appellant.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌÌGary€E.€Lester,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees€Roger€Strutton,€Betty€Strutton,€and€GaryÐ H,˜', ÐE.€Lester.Ð  4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€6,€1999,€Roger€and€Betty€Strutton€filed€a€Detainer€Warrant€with€docketÐ `° Ðnumber€D441497€in€the€Hamilton€County€General€Sessions€Court€against€Ms.€Hayes.€€The€StruttonsÐ L œ Ðsought€possession€of€property€located€at€1102€Tunnel€Boulevard.€€The€Struttons€were€representedÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€attorney€Gary€E.€Lester€(ð ðLesterðð).€€The€Detainer€Warrant€indicates€Ms.€Hayes€was€representedÐ $ t Ðby€attorney€Randy€Russell.€€A€trial€took€place€on€June€7,€1999,€after€which€the€General€SessionsÐ  ` ÐCourt€Judge€entered€a€judgment€for€the€Struttons€restoring€them€ð ðto€the€possession€of€the€withinÐ ü L  Ðdescribed€property,€for€which€a€Writ€of€Possession€may€issue,€and€court€costs€are€adjudged€againstððÐ è 8  ÐMs.€Hayes.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€this€judgment€was€appealed.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThree€days€after€the€General€Sessions€Court€trial,€Ms.€Hayes€filed€a€separate€òòpro€seóóÐ ¬ü  Ðlawsuit€against€the€Struttons€for€ð ðfalsifying€a€(sic)€installment€note€that€was€secured€by€a€deed€ofÐ ˜è  Ðtrust.ðð€€This€lawsuit€was€filed€in€the€Hamilton€County€General€Sessions€Court€and€its€docket€numberÐ „Ô  Ðwas€444008.€€The€Struttons€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€this€second€lawsuit.€€The€General€SessionsÐ pÀ ÐCourt€Judge€granted€the€motion,€making€specific€reference€to€the€first€lawsuit€by€stating:€€ð ðSee€caseÐ \¬ Ð#D441497".€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€this€second€judgment€was€appealed.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àSometime€during€the€following€year,€Ms.€Hayes€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€lawsuit€in€the€UnitedÐ  p ÐStates€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Tennessee.€€Ms.€Hayes€sued€as€defendants€theÐ  \ ÐStruttons€and€attorney€Lester,€as€well€as€Mark€G.€Rothberger,€attorney€at€law,€the€Honorable€JohnÐ øH ÐC.€Cook,€United€States€Bankruptcy€Judge,€and€the€United€States€Bankruptcy€Court.€€The€record€onÐ ä4 Ðappeal€does€not€contain€a€copy€of€the€federal€court€complaint,€although€the€Struttons€and€LesterÐ Ð  Ðclaim€it€is€ð ðvirtually€identicalðð€to€the€complaint€filed€in€the€present€case.€€In€any€event,€the€recordÐ ¼  Ðdoes€contain€an€Order€and€Judgment€entered€by€the€United€States€District€Court€on€September€25,Ð ¨ø Ð2000,€which€states:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€€The€motion€by€defendants€Robert€Strutton,€Betty€Strutton,Ð l¼ Ðand€Gary€E.€Lester€to€dismiss€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€against€themÐ X ¨ Ðð8ð€is€ò òGRANTEDó ó;ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€All€of€the€plaintiffððs€claims€brought€against€defendantsÐ  #p! ÐRobert€Strutton,€Betty€Strutton,€and€Gary€E.€Lester€pursuant€to€42Ð  $\" ÐU.S.C.€ðððð€1982,€1983,€1984,€and€1985€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„Ð ø$H # Ð14„117,€39„11„710,€39„11„711,€and€39„11„712€are€ò òDISMISSEDÐ ä%4!$ ÐWITH€PREJUDICEó ó€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12(b)(6)€for€failure€toÐ Ô&$"% Ðstate€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted;ÐÄ'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)€€The€only€viable€claim€which€remains€before€the€Court€forÐ œ)ì$( Ðadjudication€is€the€plaintiffððs€tort€claim€of€common€law€fraud€beingÐ ˆ*Ø%) Ðasserted€against€defendants€Robert€Strutton,€Betty€Strutton,€Gary€E.Ð t+Ä&* ÐLester,€and€Mark€G.€Rothberger.€€The€common€law€fraud€claim€isÐ ° Ðò òDISMISSED€WITHOUT€PREJUDICEó ó.€€This€claim€is€predicatedÐ œì Ðsolely€on€the€substantive€law€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€and€this€CourtÐ ŒÜ Ðdeclines€to€exercise€supplemental€jurisdiction€over€the€plaintiffððsÐ xÈ Ðcommon€law€fraud€claim€pursuant€to€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1367.ð8ð€€This€is€aÐ d´ Ðò òFINAL€JUDGMENTó ó׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐP  ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€federal€district€court€apparently€was€appealed€to€the€UnitedÐ ( x ÐStates€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit,€but€the€appeal€was€later€stricken€by€Ms.€HayesððÐ  d Ðattorney€who€had€been€retained€following€entry€of€the€adverse€judgment€in€the€district€court.€€Ð  P  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€6,€2001,€Ms.€Hayes€proceeded€to€file€yet€another€òòpro€seóó€lawsuit.€€This€nextÐ Ø(  Ðlawsuit€was€filed€in€the€Hamilton€County€Circuit€Court.€€Ms.€Hayes€sued€the€Struttons,€as€well€asÐ Ä  Ðattorneys€Lester€and€Rothberger.€€Although€it€is€extremely€difficult,€if€not€impossible,€to€ascertainÐ °  Ðthe€exact€basis€for€Ms.€Hayesðð€lawsuit,€it€appears€several€years€ago€Ms.€Hayes€filed€for€bankruptcyÐ œì  Ðafter€purchasing€the€property€at€issue.€€At€one€point€in€her€complaint€Ms.€Hayes€claims€she€satisfiedÐ ˆØ  Ðthe€debt€on€the€property€through€the€bankruptcy€proceedings.€€In€the€next€paragraph,€however,€sheÐ tÄ Ðclaims€she€attempted€to€reopen€her€bankruptcy€ð ðso€she€could€finish€paying€what€she€owed.ðð€€LaterÐ `° Ðin€the€complaint,€Ms.€Hayes€claims€the€Struttons€and€attorney€Lester€ð ðdefrauded€her€out€of€herÐ Lœ Ðproperty€by€hook€and€crook€by€Fraud€in€Insolvency€by€intentionally€falsifying€any€writhing€(sic)€orÐ 8ˆ Ðrecords€relating€to€the€propertyð8ð.ðð€€It€is€not€at€all€clear€why€a€claim€was€asserted€against€attorneyÐ $t ÐRothberger€who€apparently€had€some€connection€to€the€bankruptcy€litigation.€€In€her€complaint,€Ms.Ð ` ÐHayes€asserted€claims€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„710€„€712,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€1982€„€1985,Ð üL Ðand€for€fraud.€€After€a€motion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings€was€filed,€the€Circuit€Court€dismissedÐ è8 Ðthe€complaint€after€concluding€all€of€Plaintiffððs€claims€for€statutory€violations€were€barred€by€theÐ Ô$ Ðdoctrine€of€res€judicata€in€that€these€very€same€claims€against€the€same€parties€were€dismissed€withÐ À Ðprejudice€by€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Tennessee.€€The€Circuit€CourtÐ ¬ü Ðalso€concluded€the€fraud€claim€was€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata€in€that€a€ð ðcourt€ofÐ ˜è Ðcompetent€jurisdiction€entered€judgments€on€the€merits€concerning€the€same€cause€of€action€andÐ „Ô Ðinvolving€the€same€parties€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€of€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee€in€casesÐ pÀ Ðnumber€D441497€and€444008.ðð€€Ms.€Hayes€then€appealed€the€dismissal€of€her€complaint€to€thisÐ \ ¬ ÐCourt.€€On€June€11,€2002,€this€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€Plaintiffððs€claims.€€òòSeeóó€òòHayes€v.Ð H!˜ ÐStruttonóó,€No.€E2001„01765„COA„R3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€414€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€11,Ð 4"„  Ð2002).€€Ms.€Hayes€then€filed€a€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€TennesseeÐ  #p! ÐSupreme€Court,€which€was€denied€on€October€7,€2002.Ð  $\" ÐÌà  àà ` àMs.€Hayes€apparently€was€dissatisfied€with€both€judgments€of€the€Hamilton€CountyÐ ä%4!$ ÐGeneral€Sessions€Court,€the€judgment€of€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€ofÐ Ð& "% ÐTennessee,€the€judgment€of€the€Hamilton€County€Circuit€Court,€the€judgment€of€this€Court,€as€wellÐ ¼' #& Ðas€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€refusal€to€grant€her€permission€to€appeal.€€Accordingly,€she€filedÐ ¨(ø#' Ðthe€present€lawsuit€in€the€Hamilton€County€Circuit€Court€making€the€very€same€allegations€as€setÐ ° Ðforth€in€the€previous€lawsuits.€€The€defendants€in€the€present€case€are€the€Struttons€and€attorneyÐ œì ÐLester€(ð ðDefendantsðð).€€On€March€18,€2003,€the€Circuit€Court€entered€an€order€after€concluding€theÐ ˆØ Ðdoctrine€of€res€judicata€barred€the€present€lawsuit€inasmuch€as€all€of€the€issues€between€these€sameÐ tÄ Ðparties€had€already€been€addressed.€€€The€Trial€Court€then€stated:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àDefendantsðð€counsel€also€asks€the€Court€to€bar€Ms.€HayesÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€filing€additional€lawsuits€on€this€subject€matter.€€On€theÐ $ t Ðauthority€of€òòAlton€Dixon€v.€Nike,€Inc.óó,€the€Court€ORDERS€Ms.€HayesÐ  ` Ðshall€not€file€additional€lawsuits€arising€out€of€this€same€subjectÐ ü L  Ðmatter€until€payment€of€court€costs€incident€to€her€prior€filings€andÐ è 8  Ðthis€filing.€€This€Order€does€not€preclude€an€appeal€of€the€CourtððsÐ Ô$  Ðruling€in€this€case.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àMs.€Hayes€now€appeals€the€dismissal€of€her€second€complaint€filed€in€the€CircuitÐ ˜è  ÐCourt.€€Defendants€argue€the€appeal€is€frivolous.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€a€trial€court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ 4„ Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ  p ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ  \ Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ øH Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ ä4 ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€her€brief€on€appeal,€Ms.€Hayes€sets€forth€no€law€or€argument€explaining€to€thisÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€why€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€concluded€every€single€one€of€her€claims€was€barred€by€theÐ ”ä Ðdoctrine€of€res€judicata.€€The€same€defect€was€apparent€in€her€previous€appeal€to€this€Court€whereinÐ €Ð Ðwe€stated:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[A]t€no€point€in€her€brief€does€she€set€forth€an€argument€whichÐ D!” Ðarticulates€the€basis€for€her€assertions€that€the€Court€erred€as€to€theseÐ 0"€  Ðissues€nor€does€she€cite€any€authority€which€would€support€suchÐ #l! Ðassertions.€€As€recognized€inòò€State€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCrim.€App.€1990)€at€page€698:Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàFailure€of€a€defendant€to€cite€authority€for€propositions€in€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðargument€on€appeal€constitutes€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòState€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐHoustonóó,€688€S.W.2d€838€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòMoorman€v.€Stateóó,€577€S.W.2d€473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).Ð )à$( ÐThe€brief€of€the€appellant€should€contain€an€argument€settingÐ |*Ì%) Ðforth€the€contentions€of€the€appellant€with€respect€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðissues€presented€with€citations€to€the€authorities€andÐ ° Ðappropriate€references€to€the€record.Ðœì¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€find€that€Ms.€Hayes€has€waived€those€issuesÐ tÄ Ðset€forth€in€her€brief€as€to€Mr.€and€Ms.€Strutton€and€Mr.€Lester.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌòòHayes€v.€Struttonóó,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€414,€at€*€6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€11,€2002).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€same€reasons,€in€the€present€case€we€conclude€Ms.€Hayes€has€once€againÐ  ` Ðwaived€these€issues€and€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€must€be€affirmed.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€sole€issue€raised€by€Defendants€is€their€claim€that€this€appeal€is€frivolousÐ Ô$  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122.€€We€could€not€agree€more.€€These€same€issues€betweenÐ À  Ðthese€same€parties€have€been€litigated€over€and€over€again.€€Although€difficult€to€articulate,€it€is€quiteÐ ¬ü  Ðapparent€that€the€first€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€holding€Ms.€Hayesðð€claims€were€barred€by€resÐ ˜è  Ðjudicata€is,€for€purposes€of€this€second€Circuit€Court€lawsuit,€res€judicata.€€In€other€words,€theÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment€that€the€claims€are€barred€by€res€judicata€is,€in€and€of€itself,€res€judicata.€€We€agree€thisÐ pÀ Ðappeal€is€frivolous.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àVery€recently,€the€Middle€Section€of€this€Court€reached€a€similar€conclusion€afterÐ 4„ Ðconcluding€the€plaintiff€in€that€case€had€filed€the€appeal€ð ðfor€the€purpose€of€re„litigating€claims€thatÐ  p Ðhad€already€been€finally€resolved.ðð€€This€Court€stated:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àParties€should€not€be€forced€to€bear€the€cost€and€vexation€ofÐ ä4 Ðbaseless€appeals.€€òòDavis€v.€Gulf€Ins.€Groupóó,€546€S.W.2d€583,€586Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1977);€òòJackson€v.€Aldridgeóó,€6€S.W.3d€501,€504€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¼  ÐApp.€1999);€òòMcDonald€v.€Onohóó,€772€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¨ø ÐApp.€1989).€€Accordingly,€in€1975,€€the€Tennessee€General€AssemblyÐ ”ä Ðenacted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122€to€enable€appellate€courts€toÐ €Ð Ðaward€damages€against€parties€whose€appeals€are€frivolous€or€areÐ l¼ Ðbrought€solely€for€the€purpose€of€delay.€€Determining€whether€toÐ X ¨ Ðaward€these€damages€is€a€discretionary€decision.€€òòBanks€v.€St.€FrancisÐ D!” ÐHosp.óó,€697€S.W.2d€340,€343€(Tenn.1985).Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€frivolous€appeal€is€one€that€is€devoid€of€merit,€òòCombustionÐ $X" ÐEngððg,€Inc.€v.€Kennedyóó,€562€S.W.2d€202,€205€(Tenn.€1978),€or€oneÐ ô$D # Ðthat€has€no€reasonable€chance€of€succeeding.òò€€Davis€v.€Gulf€Ins.Ð à%0!$ ÐGroupóó,€546€S.W.2d€at€586;€òòJackson€v.€Aldridgeóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€504;Ð Ì&"% ÐòòIndustrial€Dev.€Bd.€v.€Hancockóó,€901€S.W.2d€382,€385€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ð1995).ð8ðФ(ô#'` x` x Ðâ âÐ )à$( ÐòòYoung€v.€Barrowóó,€No.€M2001„00876„COA„R3„CV,€2003€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€678,€at€**€16„17€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€Sept.€16,€2003).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àMs.€Hayesðð€appeal€is€devoid€of€any€merit€and€had€no€reasonable€chance€ofÐ tÄ Ðsucceeding.€€Accordingly,€the€Struttons€and€Lester€are€entitled€to€damages€in€accordance€with€Tenn.Ð `° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122.€Ð L œ ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ ü L  ÐCourt€for€the€assessment€of€damages€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122€and€for€anyÐ è 8  Ðfurther€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€including€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appealÐ Ô$  Ðare€assessed€against€the€Appellant€Effie€Louise€Hayes.€€Ð À  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ  \ Ð