WPC, wNeh|Ag, #g (Ai{W.3i2IT[[ɥ/Nb!"]4&t𸧣1QMp=-̴Jcв֥cqh-Nc]G?i|/z`O!tU;@Tr/a5~¹Y#;zBʠh*YΆ}1.6+D+_Rx'o2f$aѪc-<U>H 0 | 0v 0m 0d 0X 0L 0= 0. 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0E 0# 0 0 0Vw! 0<! 0v " 0" 0j# 0m# 0:#,$ 0(&U>& 17' 7,' 1i(( 7(( 0(#e)UN&+ %t+Mz+(~+N+^ + 1u+ 72),w[,4_,s, mu,\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE LA satisfied Microsoft Office UserL0A satisfied Microsoft Office User .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  64 '4Heading 1XXX       XXX6 4Heading 2   <:Default Para.$$ ,Title       XXX6'' 4Body Text     XXX < :Body Text In X     X 0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number  ')..      0XgXX0XXgXX0Xg  _! !X!%  XXgXgX(XgXXXg$$ !!$  $R  %'  XgXX(Xg(2$ .%!..      0XgXX0XXgXX0Xg  \  `&Times New Roman 359AM]q111.01.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1) 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 35=EKQW]c2(1)(a)i.1.a.i.1.a.+ i.#|x(%$..      0XgXX0XXgXX0XgHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular0XY) 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)6i)sM)rtyBar&U .%!..      0XgXX0XXgXX0Xg  _       XX8gXXdd8&! *XXg    !T  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHEMIDDLEDISTRICT  OFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLE!T݌ 2 Ќ  XgX *     *XXg"OM *     "  AllieMaeHuntv.Thomas_Claybrooks_Ԁd/b/aBestWayTire"݌ F Ќ   *OM  "OM *     "  andJames_Goodner_"݌ R  Ќ   *OM  OM * XgXOM     &    DirectAppealfromtheFirstCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyR  .Ԍ j  Ќ  OMXXg  XgXOMNo.97C3559WalterC.Kurtz,Judge'j F P  ________________ l  No.M199901582_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober25,_2000_ 8  ________________    X  Thislitigationbeganasaprobonocase.Defendant/AppellantJames_Goodner_   ( _Goodner_)representedhimselfproseonOctober22,1997attheGeneralSessions  Courtandreceivedajudgmentagainsthim._Goodner_Ԁtimelyappealedthedecisiontothe f CircuitCourt.Plaintiff/AppelleeAllieMaeHunt( Hunt)diedafterthecasewas L appealedfromtheGeneralSessionsCourttotheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty, 2 Tennessee.Thereafter,thetrialcourtdismissed_Goodner_sappealandthiscasetookona h differentcharacter.DavidE._Danner_Ԁ( _Danner_)filedaRule60.02motiontogetthe N casereinstated,allegedlyaccusingHuntsattorney,C.BennettHarrison( Harrison)of 4  fraud,misrepresentationorothermisconduct.Harrisonfiledaresponsetothemotion  containingamotionforRule11sanctionsagainst_Danner_.Subsequently,_Danner_Ԁasked  forsanctionsagainstHarrison,whichweredenied.Huntscasewasreinstated,butthe  trialcourtordered_Danner_Ԁtopayattorneyfeesof$100toHarrisonasasanctionofRule | 11.Weaffirmandmodifythetrialcourtsdecision. b  X      &  6  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedas .~ Modified6m  IԌ  d Ќ  '.a  J  ASH,SpecialJudgeDon,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJudge !0 CRAWFORDandJudgeFARMER,joined. "  DavidE._Danner_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,James_Goodner_. $" C.BennettHarrison,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,AllieMaeHunt. ^&!$ XgXXXg      &     OPINION l  HԌ *(z#& Ќ  XgXXXg  ݀I.'*(` )`$'  X  Inordertoputthistransactionintoperspective,somebackgroundinformation *,&) willfacilitatethisprocess.Mrs.Huntsattorney,C.BennettHarrison,wasretainedto +'* representherthroughtheNashvilleBarAssociationProBonoProgram.Theinitialsuit, ,'+ filedinGeneralSessionsCourt,allegedthat_Goodner_Ԁcommittedfraudandviolatedthe -(, _TennesseeConsumerProtectionActbyfraudulentlyenforcinganartisanslienagainst  Huntsautomobile.   X XPursuanttothatsuit,ajudgmentwasobtainedagainstGoodnerforattorneysfees b andtrebledamages.GoodnerlaterappealedthejudgmenttotheCircuitCourtandthe H casewasassignedtoJudgeWalterC.Kurtz.Duringthependencyoftheappealand . ~ whilesettlementnegotiationswerebeingconducted,Mrs.Huntdied.Thereafter,  d HarrisonsentalettertoGoodnersattorney,DavidE.Dannerallegedlystatingthat  J HarrisonsofficewouldprobateHuntsestatesothatthecasecouldproceedwitha  0 personalrepresentative.Subsequently,Harrisonfiledamotiontodismiss,arguingthat    DannerhadadutytoprobateHuntsestate.     X XAsuggestionofdeathwasfiledonbehalfofHuntinaccordancewithRule25.01 x  oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Further,amotiontodismisstheGeneral ^  SessionsCourtappealwaslaterfiledasaresultofthefailureofanypartytofileamotion D  forsubstitutionofthedeceasedparty.ThecourtgrantedthismotionastoGoodner,with *z  GoodnersGeneralSessionsappealbeingdismissedandtheGeneralSessionsjudgment ` beingreinstated. F  , DannersubsequentlyfiledamotioninaccordancetoRule60.02oftheTennessee  RulesofCivilProceduretosetasidethatOrderdismissinghisGeneralSessionsappeal.  Atthatpoint,thecasetookonamuchdifferentcharacter.Inthatmotion,Danneraccused  Harrisonof fraud,misrepresentationorothermisconduct.OnMarch18,1999,Hunt t filedaresponsetothismotion. Z  X XInHuntsresponsetothemotiontosetasidethedismissaloftheappealhe &v incorporatedarequestthattheCourtsanctionDannerforusingdefamatorystatements  \ againstHarrisonwithoutanybasisinfactorlaw.ThetrialcourtreinstatedHuntscase B butsanctionedDanner.Accordingly,JudgeKurtzfoundthattherewasnosupportinthe ( recordtochargeHarrisonof fraud,misrepresentationorothermisconduct.Thereafter,  JudgeKurtzOrderedDannertopayHarrisonattorneyfeesintheamountof$100asa  sanctionforviolationofRule11.Furthermore,JudgeKurtzstruckthewords fraud,   misrepresentationorothermisconductfromtherecord.OnAugust2,1999,Goodner p!  filedaRule11motionforsanctionsagainstHarrisonandhislawfirm,Cornelius& V"! Collins.OnSeptember27,1999JudgeHamiltonGaydendeniedGoodnersmotionfor <#" Rule11sanctionsagainstHarrisonandthisappealfollowed. "$r#  X  ӀII. %>!% # X    #G!  ThefocusoftheCourtregardingthelitigationofthiscasehingesonthe ' #' implicationofTenn.R.Civ.P.11.Rule11empowersthecourttoimposedisciplinary (#( sanctionsonattorneysforvarioustypesofimproperconduct.Rule11.03ofthe )$) TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureprovideasfollows:#G!|!݌ l*%* Ќ  X  X?+4 44 <DL!X?   ) (036/  /" "  XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E   ~X  B(Z Z <DL!444X!B$2  10  .  03  3   Z   Sanctions.!If,afternoticeandareasonableopportunitytorespond,the 8,', courtdeterminesthatsubdivision11.02hasbeenviolated,thecourtmay, -n(- subjecttotheconditionsstatedbelow,imposeanappropriatesanction  upontheattorneys,lawfirms,orpartiesthathaveviolatedsubdivision  11.02orareresponsiblefortheviolation.$%݌ | Ќ X~*444X!Z Z X!*   E+4 44 <DL!444X!E + (0 0 ) / /""  ,XH.4 <DL!444X!H  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E[)2(  1  )3   `   HowInitiated.[)?*݌ H Ќ X*444X!` ` X!*   E+4 44 <DL!444X!E""  XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  X?% <DL!444X!?m+2(  a  )3     ByMotion.Amotionforsanctionsunderthisrule shallbemade  d separately fromothermotionsorrequestsandshalldescribethe  J specificconductallegedtoviolatesubdivision11.02.Itshallbe  0 servedasprovidedinRule5, butshallnotbefiledwithorpresented    tothecourtunless,within21daysafterserviceofthemotion(or    suchotherperiodasthecourtmayprescribe) (emphasisadded),the   challengedpaper,claim,defense,contention,allegation,ordenialis x  notwithdrawnorappropriatelycorrected.m+H,݌ ^  Ќ X*444X!  X!*   XB( <DL!444X!B""  XE+4 44 <DL!  X!E  X?% <DL!444X!?02(  b  )3     OnCourtsInitiative.Onitsowninitiative,thecourtmayenteran *z  orderdescribingthespecificconductthatappearstoviolate ` subdivision11.02anddirectinganattorney,lawfirm,orpartytoshow F causewhyithasnotviolatedsubdivision11.02withrespectthereto.00݌ , Ќ *  X!  X!*   B( <DL!  X!B""  ,H.4 <DL!  X!H  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!EX32(  2  )3   `   NatureofSanction;Limitations.Asanctionimposedforviolationofthisrule  shallbelimitedtowhatissufficienttodeterrepetitionofsuchconductor  comparableconductbyotherssimilarlysituated.Subjecttothelimitationsin t subparagraphs(a)and(b),thesanctionmayconsistof,orinclude,directives Z ofnonmonetarynature,anordertopayapenaltyintocourt,or,ifimposedon @ motionandwarrantedforeffectivedeterrence,anorderdirectingpaymentto &v themovantofsomeorallofthereasonableattorneysfeesandotherexpenses  \ incurredasaresultoftheviolation.X3<4݌ B Ќ *  X!` ` X!*   B( <DL!  X!B""  XE+4 44 <DL!  X!E  X?% <DL!444X!?682(  a  )3     Monetarysanctionsmaynotbeawardedagainstarepresentedparty  forviolationofsubdivision11.02(2).689݌  Ќ *  X!  X!*   B( <DL!  X!B""  XE+4 44 <DL!  X!E  X?% <DL!444X!? :2(  b  )3     Monetarysanctionsmaynotbeawardedonthecourtsinitiative p!  unlessthecourtissuesitsordertoshowcausebeforeavoluntary V"! dismissalorsettlementoftheclaimsmadebyoragainsttheparty <#" whichis,orwhoseattorneysare,tobesanctioned. (emphasis "$r# added) :;݌ %X $ Ќ *  X!  X!*     E+ 4 <DL!  X!E X  Itisclearthat11.03(1)(a),11.03(1)(b),and11.03(2)(b)ofRule11ofthe &$"& TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurewillplayadeterminativeroleintheoutcomeofthis ' #' case. (#(  X XTenn.R.Civ.P.11.03(1)(a)providesa21daysafeharborprovisionproposedto l*%* alleviatetheprobabilityofsanctionsbygivingopposingpartiestheopportunityto R+&+ remedychallengedallegations.Additionally,Rule11.03(1)(a)requiresthatallmotions 8,', madepursuanttothisrulebemadeseparatelyfromothermotionsorrequests. -n(- Ї# XX    #@  Here,theMotionforSanctionsagainstDannerwasnotmadeseparately.  Furthermore,Dannerwasnotgiventhebenefitofthetwentyonedaysafeharbor  provisiontowithdrawtheoffensivepleadingprovidedbyRule11.03(1)(a).Obviously, | thisisaproceduralviolation.However,Rule11.03(1)(b)providesacatchallprovision b thatmustnotbeoverlookedinthiscase.#@A݌ H Ќ  XX  X XAccordingly,Rule11.03(1)(b)givestheCourtwidelatitudeanddiscretionto  d sanctionspecificconducton itsowninitiativewhenitappearsthattheconductviolates  J Rule11.02.AppellatecourtsreviewtheimpositionofRule11sanctionsunderthe  0  deferentialabuseofdiscretionstandard. SeeKrugv.Krug, 838S.W.2d197,205    (Tenn.Ct.App.1992); Rogersv.Watts, 1998Tenn.App.LEXIS444,No01A019603    CV00120,*5.Pursuanttothisstandard,thetrialcourtabusesitsdiscretionifits   judgmentisbasedonamistakenviewofthelaw .SeeRogersv.Watts, 1998Tenn.App. x  LEXIS444at5.Onappeal,Rule11sanctionswillnotbe secondguessedunlessthe ^  movantsuffersprejudiceorinjury. Id.  D   *z  Here,JudgeKurtz,actingonhisowninitiativehaddiscretionwhenhesanctioned ` DannerforaRule11violation.ItisawellestablishedruleinTennesseethatthe F impositionofRule11sanctionsissolelywithinthediscretionofthetrialcourtunlessan , injusticehasoccurred.Noinjusticeorinjuryhasoccurredhere.Further,JudgeKurtz  correctlyestablishedthattherewasnosupportintherecordtoaccuseHarrisonof fraud,  misrepresentationorothermisconductmakingsanctionsinaccordancetoRule11  appropriateagainstDanner.ItistheconclusionofthisCourtthatJudgeKurtzdidnot t abusehisdiscretionwhenhesanctionedDanner. Z  X XTheremainingissueconcerningRule11iswhetherJudgeKurtzviolatedtheRule &v whenhesanctionedDanner$100tobepaidtoHarrisonasattorneyfees.Rule  \ 11.03(2)(b)conditionsthatmonetarysanctionscannotbeawardedontheCourts B initiativeunlesstheCourtissuesanOrdertoshowcausebeforeavoluntarydismissal.In ( thiscase,therewasnoshowcauseOrderissued,consequently,JudgeKurtzsissuanceof  monetarysanctionswasinviolationoftheRule.Accordingly,thetrialcourterredwhen  itgranteda$100attorneyfeesanctionagainstDannerforhismisconduct.    X̀III.  V"!  XInlightofthesecircumstances,thiscourtisremindedofthefollowingquotefrom "$r# RoscoePound: Theideathatproceduremustofnecessitybewhollycontentious8leads %X $ counseltoforgetthattheyareofficersofthecourtandtodealwiththerulesofthelaw %>!% andprocedureexactlyastheprofessionalfootballcoach[deals]withtherulesofthe &$"& sport.Theeffect8isnotonlytoirritateparties,witnessesandjurorsinparticularcases, ' #' buttogivetothewholecommunityafalsenotionofthepurposeandendoflaw8.Ifthe (#( lawisameregame,neithertheplayerswhotakepartinitnorthepublicwhowitnessit )$) canbeexpectedtoyieldtoitsspiritwhentheirinterestsareservedbyevadingit. l*%*  R+&+ Itshouldbeagoalofourprofessiontotreateachotherwithrespectinsteadof 8,', lookingforopportunitiestoattackeachotherscharacter. -n(- ЇWhilethisCourtfoundthatmonetarysanctionswasinappropriate,itisthe  opinionofthiscourtthatJudgeKurtzsdecisiontosanctionDannerisgivenextensive  deference. |  b Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandmodified.Inaddition,Danner H withdrewhisappealforsanctionsagainstHarrisonatoralargument,thusthatissuewas . ~ notconsideredbythiscourt.Costsonappealareassessedequallybetweentheparties.  d Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,consistentwiththis  J opinion.  0              <      D      L   !!H!   <      D   JudgeDonR.Ash x   X