ÿWPCg ƤÈ?ê÷„â‘èƒ6Ï WYgî³kX èbŠmVû+Öíºf(ðˤøžª+‹ÊþRŽô;'e;¦5: êˆj W±¸ L‹>ê{Ƚ¾ä5­ òh6ß®2• Šm;zõˆIáO·AÂ}[ˆ™ÒnYÛÈ‘oyÒˆ@à88>÷*ði`(ñS”EÍøFwµx’Òð?-Zlío¹‰£Ãm¤ùWV‹eÁyÿåk;?·”œô¨¡[ݪxúãO4jöØèßÅx4_.®®I‡"¬)0 ÓHwÕ.óI‹–ù8-Àl©UÒW±½e~ú¡Äºöuoy‰Iþ-þ>Ÿó"M­â±ß]‹‹3A’uië{@Uõ'P4¡àb3«gºåé¼öÑ#3}Ï`ü‚\a—DA?Zva#§ü‹´±AÓIä5Ÿ3·5ÖçDÔ‰¤iö‘íôÊaJjÃêrµ_ÑÙŽ¶W3±U0Ï´eÿÒZg¥ñ·]Øè%¢0}#Ûf˜a·Yu¸Kþ‘=!DŽÓƒ‚nÏFÊA·OÐ+‚%Rî­íáÝÀÓÖ,„ã*ò‚Šj£ð¨zöÊg”.lDDLˆÈý:ŸܣÄ+ôˆçæÿàŽÿàï…›`—NtløÔ°š€êüMb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U$N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz Ó‘ Æd Æ*Æðƶ 0D|NÀUNµEÅØÇUNŸŸŸŸoííííííííííííííííííb\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0ëdddd BOO 0¤l D3 D-C 0Kpp AS»Æ 0¤Ô 0Dx A«¼˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»1—~) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)`Ä¡~1è£ ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÉÝ ƒRùí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€more€detailed€recitation€of€the€underlying€facts€in€the€earlier€appeal€can€be€found€in€the€opinion€of€this€CourtÐ ° Ðat€òòÔ_ÔMandrellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔMcBeeÔ_Ô,óó€892€Ô‡ôêòòôêÔS.W.2dÔ#†ôêòòôêe#Ô€842€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular «Ý ƒRùí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔMandrellÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔVadenÔ_Ô€argue€in€their€brief€that€Sweeneyððs€complaint€about€their€dealings€with€First€City€BankÐ ° Ðshould€fall€on€deaf€ears€because€Sweeney€has€been€a€Director€of€First€City€Bank€throughout€this€litigation. ÎÝ ƒRùí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔMandrellÔ_Ô€is€President€and€CEO€of€Guaranty€Trust.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular eÝ ƒRùí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔMandrellÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔVadenÔ_Ô€argued,€among€other€things,€that€this€issue€was€moot€because€the€funds€had€already€beenÐ ° Ðdistributed€before€the€motion€was€filed.- ù-(|G2ùí$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€V…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêò»»Ô d(|3G†$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€V…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G†$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€V…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€V…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼V…»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î_DV…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼V…»îî_D #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€12,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼V…ÔÌÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼V…»XX õ#ÔWENDELL€O.€Ô_ÔMANDRELLÔ_Ô,€ET€UX,€òòet€al.óó€v.€WILLIAM€T.€Ô_ÔMCBEEÔ_Ô,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X X»¼V…Ôó óÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ªú  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€88„25€€€€€€Hon.€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔCorlewÔ_Ô,€III,€ChancellorÐ –æ  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Y` AßÐ Zª  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00108„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€30,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ U¥ ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<,` AßÐ -} Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ‡X XXX ÔThis€is€a€partnership€dispute€occasioned€by€the€misappropriation€of€partnership€funds€by€two€of€theÐ P Ðfive€partners.€€In€an€earlier€appeal€in€this€case,€this€Court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÐ ì< Ðawarding€damages€to€the€innocent€partners€but€increased€the€amount€of€that€judgment.€€This€CourtÐ Ø( Ðthen€remanded€the€case€to€the€Trial€Court,€which€heard€further€proof€and€made€findings€as€to€theÐ Ä Ðdistribution€of€partnership€assets.€€In€this€appeal,€a€Defendant€partner€seeks€reversal€of€the€TrialÐ ° ÐCourtððs€valuation€and€accounting€of€the€partnership€assets€and€computation€of€prejudgment€interest.€Ð œì ÐWe€find€the€concurrent€findings€of€fact€by€the€Special€Master€and€the€Trial€Court€are€supported€byÐ ˆØ Ðmaterial€evidence€in€the€record,€and€that€the€Special€Master€and€the€Trial€Court€properly€interpretedÐ tÄ Ðthis€Courtððs€earlier€Opinion.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€in€all€respects.€Ð `° ÐÔ#†X XXX J#ÔÔ#†¼V…»XX È#ÔÔ‡X X»¼V…Ô¹Ó<ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ $"t! ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼V…»àX ñ #ÔÔ‡X X.¼V…ÔD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó€andÐ è$8 $ ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌWilliam€Ô_ÔKennerlyÔ_Ô€Burger,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Marshall€Preston€Sweeney.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌG.€Sumner€R.€Ô_ÔBouldinÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees€Wendell€O.€Ô_ÔMandrellÔ_Ô€andÐ „)Ô$) ÐPatrick€T.€Ô_ÔVadenÔ_Ô.Ð p*À%* ÐÌÓ{ ÓÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼V…»XX ª #ÔÔ‡X X»¼V…ÔÐ ° ÐÌò òòòBackgroundóóó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼V…»XX š #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X X»¼V…Ôà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€Wendell€Mandrell€and€Patrick€Vaden€were€partners€with€William€Peacock,€Ð `° ÐWilliam€McBee€and€Defendant€Marshall€Sweeney€in€a€partnership€created€in€1986€to€build€andÐ L œ Ðmanage€an€office€building€in€downtown€Murfreesboro.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€There€is€no€written€partnership€agreement.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐSweeney€and€Peacock€had€worked€with€McBee€on€other€projects.€€Mandrell€and€Vaden€did€not€knowÐ $ t ÐMcBee.€€McBee€offered€to€construct€the€building€at€cost€in€return€for€a€twenty€percent€interest€in€theÐ  ` Ðpartnership.€€The€other€partners€accepted€McBeeððs€proposal€and€agreed€that€each€of€the€five€partnersÐ ü L  Ðwould€own€twenty€percent€of€the€partnership.€€The€partnership€borrowed€$575,000€from€First€CityÐ è 8  ÐBank€on€November€20,€1986.€€Between€February€10€and€May€22,€1987,€either€Sweeney€or€McBeeÐ Ô$  Ðmade€eight€draws€on€that€loan€totaling€$575,000.€€All€of€those€funds€were€deposited€in€McBeeððsÐ À  Ðpersonal€checking€account.€€Mandrell,€Vaden,€and€Peacock€did€not€learn€that€the€loan€proceeds€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€exhausted€until€late€May€1987.€€Since€the€building€was€not€complete€when€the€funds€wereÐ ˜è  Ðexhausted,€Mandrell,€Vaden,€Peacock€and€Sweeney€filed€suit€against€McBee€alleging€that€McBeeÐ „Ô  Ðhad€misrepresented€the€construction€costs€and€misappropriated€a€portion€of€the€construction€loanÐ pÀ Ðproceeds.€€McBee€revealed€during€discovery€that€he€and€Sweeney€had€agreed€to€use€part€of€the€loanÐ \¬ Ðproceeds€to€pay€off€other€unrelated€business€debts.€€Mandrell,€Vaden€and€Peacock€then€amended€theÐ H˜ ÐComplaint€to€allege€that€both€McBee€and€Sweeney€had€misappropriated€partnership€funds.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€1990,€McBee€was€convicted€of€conspiracy€to€commit€armed€robbery€and€pledÐ  \ Ðguilty€to€mail€fraud€and€owning€an€illegal€gambling€business.€€As€a€result€of€that€conviction,€he€didÐ øH Ðnot€appear€to€defend€this€civil€suit,€and€on€December€18,€1990,€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€orderÐ ä4 Ðgranting€Mandrell,€Vaden,€Peacock€and€Sweeney€a€$264,950€default€judgment€against€McBee€in€thisÐ Ð  Ðcase.€€In€February€1991,€the€Trial€Court€heard€evidence€against€Sweeney€and€found€that€McBee€andÐ ¼  ÐSweeney€had€conspired€to€pay€themselves€$20,000€each€from€the€construction€loan€and€that€theyÐ ¨ø Ðwere€jointly€and€severally€liable€to€the€partnership€for€the€$40,000€they€diverted.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ ”ä Ðawarded€Mandrell€and€Vaden€a€$40,000€judgment€against€Sweeney.€€Mandrell€and€Vaden€appealed,Ð €Ð Ðasserting€that€they€were€entitled€to€more€than€the€$40,000€judgment€against€Sweeney.€€On€appeal,Ð l¼ Ðthis€Court€found€that€evidence€in€the€record€proved€that€McBee€and€Sweeney€had€divertedÐ X ¨ Ð$91,176.03€rather€than€$40,000€from€the€partnership.€€This€Court€held€that€ð ð[i]n€the€accounting€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€partnership€assets,€Messrs.€Mandrel€and€Vaden€may€use€the€$91,176.03€judgment€as€a€set„offÐ 0"€  Ðagainst€Mr.€Sweeneyððs€share€of€the€partnership€assets€when€the€partnership€is€dissolved.ðð€€ByÐ #l! ÐJudgment€entered€September€21,€1994,€€this€Court€remanded€the€case€ð ðfor€the€entry€of€an€orderÐ $X" Ðawarding€Messrs.€Mandrell€and€Vaden€a€judgment€against€Mr.€Sweeney€in€the€amount€of€$91,176.03Ð ô$D # Ðplus€prejudgment€interest€calculated€from€April€21,€1987.ðð€€Thereafter,€the€parties€began€windingÐ à%0!$ Ðup€and€dissolution€of€the€partnership,€which€led€to€further€allegations€of€wrongdoing.Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àOn€July€7,€1995,€Sweeney€filed€a€ð ðSupplemental€Complaintðð€in€which€he€alleged€thatÐ ° Ðâ âMandrell€and€Vaden€had€ð ðengaged€in€acts€of€subterfuge€and€self„dealing,€involving€the€partnershipÐ œì Ðproperty€which€constitutes€a€breach€of€the€fiduciary€duty€owed€by€those€individuals€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðpartnership,€and€contrary€to€the€requirements€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€Ô‡X XXX ÔððÔ#†X XXX Œ#Ô€61„1„120(a).ðð€Ð tÄ ÐSweeney€specifically€alleged€that€(1)€Mandrell€and€Vaden€had€leased€the€partnership€property,€i.e.,Ð `° Ðthe€office€building,€to€Guaranty€Mortgage€Company,€in€which€Mandrell€is€a€principal,€at€less€thanÐ L œ Ðfair€market€value;€(2)€Mandrell€and€Vaden€had€re„financed€the€bank€note€with€First€City€Bank€underÐ 8 ˆ Ðterms€which€allowed€First€City€Bank€to€foreclose€on€the€original€note,€thereby€ð ðdiverting€theÐ $ t Ðpartnership€asset€from€the€control€of€the€Court€and€the€benefit€of€the€general€partnership;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€(3)Ð  ` ÐSweeneyððs€capital€account€with€the€partnership€had€been€adjusted€in€a€manner€which€would€workÐ ü L  Ðto€the€benefit€of€Mandrell€and€Vaden€and€to€the€detriment€of€Sweeney€if€the€building€were€sold€forÐ è 8  Ðless€than€the€debt€owed€against€it.€€Sweeney€sought€an€injunction€to€prevent€foreclosure€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðoriginal€note€and€liquidation€of€the€partnership€office€building€ð ðin€any€manner€inconsistent€with€theÐ À  Ðprevious€directions€of€the€Court€compelling€sale€and€distribution€of€net€profits.ðð€€Sweeney€requestedÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€appointment€of€a€Special€Master€to€make€determinations€of€fact€as€to€the€fair€market€rental€valueÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€building,€the€reasonable€expenses€incurred€in€operation€of€the€building,€the€actual€rentsÐ „Ô  Ðreceived,€the€adjustments€in€the€partnersðð€respective€capital€accounts€and€reasons€therefore€and€ð ðfinalÐ pÀ Ðadjustment€of€the€partiesðð€respective€entitlements€and€obligations€based€upon€the€foregoing€points,Ð \¬ Ðand€the€prior€orders€of€the€Court.ðð€€Sweeney€also€asked€for€damages,€immediate€sale€of€the€officeÐ H˜ Ðbuilding€by€public€auction€if€necessary€and€payment€of€the€resulting€proceeds€to€the€Clerk€of€theÐ 4„ ÐCourt€pending€resolution€of€the€issues.€€€à À àà  àÐ  p ÐÌà  àà ` àMandrell€and€Vaden€opposed€Sweeneyððs€Motion€to€File€Supplemental€Complaint€andÐ øH Ðapplication€for€preliminary€injunction.€€They€argued€that€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15.04Ð ä4 Ðis€available€only€to€supplement€an€original€complaint,€and€not€as€a€device€belatedly€to€assert€aÐ Ð  Ðcounterclaim;€that€the€supplemental€complaint,€even€if€otherwise€appropriate,€should€be€denied€asÐ ¼  Ðnot€timely€filed;€and€that€Sweeney,€having€been€found€to€have€defrauded€Mandrell€and€Vaden,€comesÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€Court€with€unclean€hands.€€They€argued€that€the€injunction€should€not€be€granted€becauseÐ ”ä ÐSweeney€had€failed€to€show€irreparable€harm€or€likelihood€of€success€on€the€merits.€€They€furtherÐ €Ð Ðargued€that€McBee,€also€a€partner,€had€judgment€liens€in€excess€of€$600,000€on€record€in€theÐ l¼ ÐRegisterððs€Office€of€Rutherford€County,€and€that€the€foreclosure€of€the€first€mortgage€lien€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðoffice€building:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€will€eliminate€all€subsequent€encumbrances,€including€thoseÐ #l! Ðjudgment€liens.€€If€the€property€is€sold€in€any€other€manner,€it€must€beÐ $X" Ðsold€subject€to€those€outstanding€liens.€€Of€course,€no€one€willÐ ô$D # Ðpurchase€a€property€subject€to€those€encumbrances€.€.€.€the€foreclosureÐ à%0!$ Ðprovides€the€best€available€means€of€realizing€the€fair€market€valueÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€property€upon€sale.и'#&` x` x ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àAfter€hearing€arguments€of€counsel€and€considering€the€legal€briefs€of€the€parties,€theÐ ° ÐTrial€Court€entered€an€Order€finding€that€the€then„present€state€of€the€pleadings€afforded€to€all€of€theÐ œì Ðparties€essentially€the€same€relief€sought€in€the€Supplemental€Complaint,€and€denying€the€requestÐ ˆØ Ðby€Sweeney€to€file€the€Supplemental€Complaint.€€€The€Trial€Court€permitted€the€foreclosure€toÐ tÄ Ðproceed€but€ordered€that€all€proceeds€be€held€by€First€City€Bank€as€Trustee,€pending€further€ordersÐ `° Ðof€the€Trial€Court,€and€restrained€that€bank€from€distributing€any€sale€proceeds€to€any€payee€for€anyÐ L œ Ðreason€pending€completion€of€the€partnership€settlement€requirements€and€other€orders€of€the€TrialÐ 8 ˆ ÐCourt.€€The€Trial€Court€ordered€that€unless€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€could€be€agreed€onÐ $ t Ðby€the€parties,€the€parties€were€to€agree€on€an€appraiser,€who€would€report€his€findings€to€the€TrialÐ  ` ÐCourt€in€writing.€€The€Trial€Court€further€ordered€that€it€be€announced€at€the€foreclosure€sale€that€theÐ ü L  ÐTrial€Court€retained€jurisdiction€to€confirm€or€reject€the€sale,€and€any€inadequate€purchase€priceÐ è 8  Ðsharply€contrasting€with€the€current€fair€market€value€of€the€real€estate€could€be€rejected€at€theÐ Ô$  Ðdiscretion€of€the€Trial€Court.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àForeclosure€and€sale€of€the€property€was€held€on€September€5,€1995.€€A€partnershipÐ ˜è  Ðconsisting€of€Mandrell,€Vaden€and€Peacock€bought€the€property€for€$575,000,€there€being€no€otherÐ „Ô  Ðbidders.€€On€October€3,€1995,€Sweeney€filed€a€Motion€to€Reject€the€Proposed€Sale,€in€which€heÐ pÀ Ðargued:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[the€selling€price€was]€.€.€.€patently€insufficient.€€At€the€trial€of€theÐ 4„ Ðcase€in€1988,€the€property€was€represented€as€having€a€value€ofÐ  p Ðapproximately€$630,000.€€Defendant€asserts€that€it€has€at€leastÐ  \ Ðincreased€at€a€rate€of€10%€per€year,€and€that€accordingly,€the€sale€toÐ øH ÐMr.€Mandrell,€a€partner,€should€be€voided€as€inadequate.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àSweeney€attached€a€proposed€contract€for€sale€of€the€property€to€Adams€&€ParksÐ ¼  ÐInvestments€for€$600,000€as€proof€that€the€selling€price€to€the€former€partners€was€inadequate.€€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐTrial€Court€heard€the€Motions€on€November€17,€1995,€and€on€December€4,€1995€entered€an€OrderÐ ”ä Ðconfirming€the€foreclosure€sale€to€the€former€partners€for€$575,000€and€ordering€First€City€Bank€toÐ €Ð Ðpay€over€to€the€Clerk€and€Master€the€net€proceeds€of€the€sale,€to€be€held€pending€further€order€of€theÐ l¼ ÐTrial€Court.€€On€December€28,€1995,€the€Trial€Court€permitted€the€Mandrell,€Peacock€and€VadenÐ X ¨ Ðpartnership€to€sell€the€property€to€Adams€&€Parks€Investments€for€$600,000.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Sweeney€then€filed€a€Motion€for€Appointment€of€Special€Master€to€receive€proofÐ #l! Ðon€the€valuation€and€accounting€of€the€partnership.€€Mandrell€and€Vaden€responded€that€they€had€noÐ $X" Ðobjection€to€the€appointment€of€a€Special€Master€but€asserted€that€certain€issues€raised€by€SweeneyÐ ô$D # Ðin€his€Motion€had€already€been€determined€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€were€the€law€of€the€case.€Ð à%0!$ ÐA€Special€Master€was€appointed€on€April€15,€1996,€and€a€hearing€before€the€Special€Master€was€heldÐ Ì&"% Ðon€June€16,€1997.€€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Special€Master€heard€the€testimony€of€partners€Mandrell,€Vaden,€Peacock€andÐ )à$( Ðâ âSweeney,€as€well€as€that€of€Carol€Adcock,€Chief€Financial€Officer€of€Guaranty€Trust,€whichÐ |*Ì%) Ðmanaged€the€partnership€property;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Donald€Hundley,€the€CPA€who€prepared€the€partnership€taxÐ ° Ðâ âreturns;€and€Larry€Sims,€licensed€real€estate€broker,€who€obtained€the€offer€of€Adams€&€ParksÐ œì ÐInvestments€to€purchase€the€partnership€property€for€$600,000.€€The€Special€Master€also€consideredÐ ˆØ Ðnumerous€exhibits,€including€all€of€the€income€tax€returns€of€the€partnership,€the€lease€agreementsÐ tÄ Ðand€other€business€records€of€the€partnership,€income€and€expense€spreadsheets,€and€a€1987€appraisalÐ `° Ðindicating€the€appraiserððs€opinion€that€the€property€was€valued€at€$630,000€at€that€time.€€AfterÐ L œ Ðhearing€all€the€testimony€and€examining€all€the€exhibits,€the€Special€Master€requested€that€the€partiesÐ 8 ˆ Ðsubmit€proposed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€One€year€later,€on€July€14,€1998,€CounselÐ $ t Ðfor€Sweeney€submitted€Defendantððs€proposal,€and€counsel€for€Mandrell€and€Vaden€submittedÐ  ` ÐPlaintiffsðð€proposal€on€August€25,€1998.€€The€Special€Master€filed€his€report€on€June€17,€1999,€inÐ ü L  Ðwhich€he€accepted€Plaintiffsðð€Proposed€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law€ð ðas€if€includedÐ è 8  Ðherein€verbatim...ðð€and€made€specific€findings€of€fact:€that€the€Mandrell,€Peacock,€Vaden€partnershipÐ Ô$  Ðpurchased€the€interest€of€McBee;€that€the€facts,€including€the€accounting,€do€not€support€a€findingÐ À  Ðof€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€or€self€dealing€by€Mandrell€or€Vaden;€and€as€provided€in€the€previousÐ ¬ü  Ðdecision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€ð ðMandrell€and€Vaden€may€use€the€$91,176.03€judgment€as€a€set„Ð ˜è  Ðoff€against€Mr.€Sweeneyððs€share€of€the€partnership€assets.ðð€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àStill€undeterred,€Sweeney€filed€in€the€Trial€Court€his€ð ðExceptions€to€the€MasterððsÐ \¬ ÐReport,ðð€accompanied€by€his€earlier„submitted€Proposed€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€Trial€Court€then€filed€a€letter€opinion€on€November€17,€1999,€in€which€the€Court€opined:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€major€issue€appears€to€be€the€question€as€to€whether€the€decisionÐ  \ Ðof€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€intended€to€award€damages€to€theÐ øH Ðpartnership,€or€to€the€Plaintiffs€individually.€€The€Court€finds€clearlyÐ ä4 Ðfrom€the€record€that€the€intention€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€toÐ Ð  Ðmake€an€award€to€the€parties€Plaintiff,€and€for€the€Court€to€determineÐ ¼  Ðthat€such€an€award€should€instead€be€in€favor€of€the€partnershipÐ ¨ø Ðwould€consititute€modification€of€the€Appellate€Court,€which€thisÐ ”ä ÐCourt€is€not€empowered€to€entertain.€€€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€underlying€issue€further€is€the€question€whether€the€partiesÐ X ¨ ÐPlaintiff€or€Parties€Plaintiff€and€Mr.€Peacock€properly€purchased€theÐ D!” Ðpartnership€interest€of€partner€McBee.€€This€issue€was€considered€byÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Court€previously€at€the€time€the€original€decision€was€entered,€andÐ #l! Ðthis€Court€contemplates€that€such€consideration€was€given€by€theÐ $X" ÐCourt€of€Appeals€as€well.€€Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€not€argued€at€great€length,€the€Court€has€considered€theÐ Ì&"% Ðproposed€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law€submitted€by€theÐ ¸'#& ÐDefendant€with€regard€to€further€Damages€which€the€DefendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðalleges€were€caused€by€the€foreclosure€on€which€the€PlaintiffsÐ )à$( Ðinsisted.€€Even€assuming€that€the€foreclosure€was€inappropriate,€theÐ ° Ðdamages€asserted€appear€to€the€Court€to€be€speculative.Мì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€[Trial]€Court€will€approve€the€Findings€and€Conclusions€of€theÐ tÄ ÐSpecial€Master,€adopting€the€Findings€and€Conclusions€suggested€byÐ `° Ðthe€Plaintiffs.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€February€14,€2000,€the€Trial€Court,€upon€motion€of€Plaintiffs,€ordered€that€theÐ $ t Ðfunds€held€by€the€Clerk€and€Master€be€disbursed€to€Plaintiffs,€and€it€appears€the€funds€were€disbursedÐ  ` Ðon€that€date.€€Sweeney€filed€a€Motion€on€March€2,€2000,€for€a€Stay€pending€resolution€of€appeal€toÐ ü L  Ðthis€Court,€and€a€Supplemental€Motion€arguing€that€no€dollar„specific€sum€which€takes€into€accountÐ è 8  Ðthe€attorneyððs€fees€and€set„offs€described€in€the€Special€Masterððs€Report€had€ever€been€entered,€andÐ Ô$  Ðtherefore€the€judgment€was€not€a€final€judgment€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€55.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Mandrell€andÐ À  ÐVaden€subsequently€filed€a€ð ðPlaintiffsðð€Computation€of€Interestðð€in€the€Trial€Court,€and€the€TrialÐ ¬ü  ÐCourt,€on€May€10,€2000,€entered€an€order€reflecting€the€total€amount€of€the€Judgment:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòOrdered€óóthat€the€Judgment€heretofore€entered€in€this€cause€be,€andÐ pÀ Ðis€hereby,€amended€to€reflect€that€the€amount€of€the€judgmentÐ \¬ Ðpresently€outstanding€as€of€April€19,€2000,€is€as€to€the€DefendantÐ H˜ ÐSweeney€òòTwo€Hundred€Nine€Thousand€Four€Hundred€Seventy€óóÐ 4„ Ðand€60/100€($209,470.60),€which€consists€of€the€original€judgmentÐ  p Ðamount€of€òòNinety„one€Thousand€One€Hundred€Seventy„Six€óóandÐ  \ Ð03/100€($91,176.03)€together€with€prejudgment€interest€thereon€fromÐ øH ÐApril€21,€1987,€to€date,€less€a€credit€of€òòNine€Thousand€TwoÐ ä4 ÐHundred€Forty„Eight€óóand€65/100€Dollars€($9,248.65),€whichÐ Ð  Ðrepresents€the€Defendant€Sweeneyððs€partnership€interest€in€the€fundsÐ ¼  Ðon€deposit€with€the€Clerk€and€Master€in€the€amount€of€òòOne€HundredÐ ¨ø ÐFour€Thousand€Seven€Hundred€Ninety„Five€óóand€89/100Ð ”ä Ð($104,795.89)€less€attorneys€fees€and€costs€in€the€amount€of€òòFifty„Ð €Ð Ðeight€Thousand€Five€Hundred€Fifty„Two€óóand€65/100€DollarsÐ l¼ Ð($58,552.65).€€Said€judgment€amount€continues€to€accrue€interest€atÐ X ¨ Ðthe€rate€of€òòTwenty„Two€óóand€45/100€Dollars€($22.45)€per€day.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Sweeney€has€appealed€to€this€Court,€and€raises€the€following€issues,€which€weÐ #l! Ðquote:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àIssue€No.€1.à0¸ Ð Ð àThe€proper€definition€and€application€of€the€ð ðinterestðð€of€partnerÐ à%0!$ ÐWilliam€McBee€in€the€original€partnership€asset€(i.e.,€now€the€fundsÐ Ì&"% Ðheld€by€the€Clerk).и'#&¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà8  àIssue€No.€2.à0¸ Ð Ð àDo€the€facts€pertaining€to€the€nine€year€management,€and€eventualÐ ° Ðforeclosure,€of€the€partnership€office€building€by€partners€Mandrell,Ð œì ÐVaden,€and€Peacock€support€a€finding€of€breach€of€fiduciary€duty,€orÐ ˆØ Ðself„dealing?Ðtĸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àIssue€No.€3.à0¸ Ð Ð àUpon€a€finding€of€self„dealing,€or€breach€of€fiduciary€duty,€whatÐ L œ Ðlosses€should€be€accounted€and€compensated€to€the€original€(five„Ð 8 ˆ Ðperson)€partnership?Ð$ t¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àIssue€No.€4.à0¸ Ð Ð àDoes€the€previous€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€require€thatÐ ü L  ÐSweeney€and€McBee€pay€(or€ð ðset„offðð)€their€respective€shares€of€theÐ è 8  Ð$91,176.03€obligation€to€the€entire€(five„person),€originalÐ Ô$  Ðpartnership?ÐÀ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8  àIssue€No.€5.à0¸ Ð Ð àHave€the€Plaintiffs€correctly€computed€the€Judgment€owed€by€theÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant/Appellant€Sweeney?Ð„Ô ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àó óóóIn€this€case,€the€Trial€Courtððs€Order€referencing€certain€matters€to€the€Special€Master,Ð 4„ Ðthe€Special€Masterððs€Report,€and€the€Trial€Courtððs€Order€adopting€that€Report€affect€our€standard€ofÐ  p Ðreview€on€appeal.€€A€concurrent€finding€of€a€Special€Master€and€a€Trial€Court€is€conclusive€onÐ  \ Ðappeal,€except€where€it€is€upon€an€issue€not€proper€to€be€referred,€where€it€is€based€on€an€error€of€lawÐ øH Ðor€a€mixed€question€of€fact€and€law,€or€where€it€is€not€supported€by€any€material€evidence.€€òòLong€v.Ð ä4 ÐLong,€óó957€Ô‡X XXX ÔS.W.2dÔ#†X XXX Jb#Ô€825,€828€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòAussenberg€v.€Kramer,€óó944€Ô‡X XXX ÔS.W.2d€Ô#†X XXX Ób#Ô€367,€370Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòArcher€v.€Archer,€óó907€Ô‡X XXX ÔS.W.2dÔ#†X XXX mc#Ô€412,€415€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€òòóóòòò òÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àó óóóDefendant€Sweeney€first€asks€this€Court€to€determine€ð ðthe€proper€definition€andÐ ”ä Ðapplication€of€the€ððinterestðð€of€partner€William€McBee€in€the€original€partnership€asset.ðð€€Such€aÐ €Ð Ðdetermination€is€not€the€function€of€this€Court.€€According€to€our€standard€of€review,€we€must€searchÐ l¼ Ðthe€record€for€any€material€evidence€supporting€the€determination€of€the€Special€Master€and€the€TrialÐ X ¨ ÐCourt€on€this€issue,€and€if€there€is€any€material€evidence,€that€determination€is€conclusive.€€TheÐ D!” ÐSpecial€Master,€in€adopting€the€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law€of€the€Plaintiffs,€found€thatÐ 0"€  ÐMandrell,€Vaden€and€Peacock€purchased€the€partnership€interest€of€Mr.€McBee,€and,€thereforeÐ #l! ÐMandrell,€Vaden€and€Peacock€each€own€a€one„third€interest€in€McBeeððs€partnership€share.€€The€proofÐ $X" Ðin€the€record€shows€that€Mandrell,€Vaden€and€Peacock€obtained€a€default€judgment€against€McBeeÐ ô$D # Ðfor€$264,950€on€December€18,€1990,€based€on€misappropriation€of€partnership€funds.€€€Mandrell,Ð à%0!$ ÐVaden€and€Peacock€formed€a€new€partnership€and€purchased€the€original€note€from€First€City€Bank.€Ð Ì&"% ÐMcBee€had€numerous€judgment€liens€against€him,€including€the€deed€of€trust€in€favor€of€First€CityÐ ¸'#& ÐBank,€which€was€prior€to€any€of€the€other€liens.€€The€practical€effect€of€the€foreclosure€of€the€noteÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€purchase€by€Mandrell,€Vaden€and€Peacock€was€ð ðto€wipe€out€entirely€all€of€the€judgment€liensÐ )à$( Ðagainst€the€property.ðð€€The€Special€Master€and€Trial€Court€held€that€Mandrell,€Vaden€and€PeacockÐ |*Ì%) Ðthereby€purchased€McBeeððs€interest€in€the€partnership.€€We€find€€material€evidence€in€the€recordÐ h+¸&* Ðsupporting€the€determination€of€the€Special€Master€and€Trial€Court€that€McBee€had€no€interestÐ ° Ðremaining€in€the€original€partnership€when€that€partnership€was€dissolved.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àSweeney€next€asks€this€Court€to€determine€whether€€the€facts€pertaining€to€the€nineÐ tÄ Ðyear€management,€and€eventual€foreclosure,€of€the€partnership€office€building€by€partners€Mandrell,Ð `° ÐVaden,€and€Peacock€support€a€finding€of€breach€of€fiduciary€duty,€or€self„dealing.€€Again,€we€areÐ L œ Ðconstrained€to€ascertain€instead€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðfindings€of€the€Special€Master€as€adopted€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€shows€that€the€partnership€was€formed€and€the€building€was€built€for€theÐ ü L  Ðpurpose€of€providing€larger€office€space€for€Guaranty€Trust€Company,€of€which€Mandrell€is€theÐ è 8  ÐPresident€and€CEO.€€Before€the€building€was€built,€the€partners€agreed€upon€rental€amounts€to€beÐ Ô$  Ðcharged€for€each€unit€based€upon€the€amount€necessary€to€service€the€partnership€indebtedness.€Ð À  ÐSweeney€participated€in€the€negotiations€to€set€the€rental€rates€for€both€Guaranty€Trust€and€anotherÐ ¬ü  Ðrenter,€J.€C.€Bradford€&€Company.€€Sweeneyððs€expert€testified€when€deposed€that€the€rents€receivedÐ ˜è  Ðby€the€partnership€for€the€building€exceeded€fair€market€value€for€the€space.€€He€also€testified€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€property€had€a€fair€market€value€of€$640,000,€a€price€which€could€reasonably€have€been€obtainedÐ pÀ Ðif€the€property€were€left€on€the€market€for€twelve€months.€€A€real€estate€commission€would€then€beÐ \¬ Ðsubtracted.€€The€property€was€ultimately€sold€for€$575,000€and€then€$600,000.€€We€find€there€isÐ H˜ Ðmaterial€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€Special€Master€and€the€Trial€Court€could€have€foundÐ 4„ Ðthat€Mandrell€and€Vaden€did€not€breach€their€fiduciary€duty€or€engage€in€self„dealing€in€conductingÐ  p Ðthe€rental€and€sale€of€the€partnership€property.€€This€finding€renders€moot€Sweeneyððs€third€issue€ofÐ  \ Ðwhat€losses€from€such€conduct€should€be€accounted€and€compensated€to€the€original€partnership.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àSweeney€next€asks€this€Court,€ð ðdoes€the€previous€decision€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ Ð  Ðrequire€that€Sweeney€and€McBee€pay€(or€ððset„offðð)€their€respective€shares€of€the€$91,176.03Ð ¼  Ðobligation€to€the€entire€(five„person)€original€partnership?ðð€€This€issue,€which€requires€theÐ ¨ø Ðinterpretation€of€an€earlier€Opinion€of€this€Court,€is€purely€a€question€of€law,€and€thus€we€review€theÐ ”ä Ðdecision€of€the€Trial€Court€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€òòNCNB€Natððl.€Bank€v.Ð €Ð ÐThrailkill,€óó856€Ô‡X XXX ÔS.W.2dÔ#†X XXX w#Ô€150,€153€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€The€Opinion€of€this€Court€at€issue,€€filedÐ l¼ ÐSeptember€21,€1994,€states,€as€pertinent:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€the€accounting€of€the€partnership€assets,€Messrs.€Mandrell€andÐ 0"€  ÐVaden€may€use€the€$91,176.03€judgment€as€a€set„off€against€Mr.Ð #l! ÐSweeneyððs€share€of€the€partnership€assets€when€the€partnership€isÐ $X" Ðdissolved.€Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` à€This€Court€opined€and€ordered€that€individual€partners€Mandrell€and€Vaden€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðentitled€to€a€judgment€against€individual€partner€Sweeney,€and€that€they€could€use€that€judgment€asÐ ¸'#& Ða€set„off€against€individual€partner€Sweeneyððs€share€of€partnership€assets.€€Upon€òòde€novo€óóreview,€weÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfind€the€Trial€Court€properly€interpreted€that€Opinion,€and€we€find€no€support€in€the€plain€languageÐ )à$( Ðof€the€Opinion€for€Sweeneyððs€argument€that€he€or€McBee€is€entitled€to€any€portion€of€the€proceedsÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€Mandrell€and€Vadenððs€judgment€against€Sweeney.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àFinally,€Sweeney€asks€this€Court€to€determine€whether€the€Trial€Court€has€correctlyÐ ° Ðcomputed€the€dollar€amount€of€the€Judgment.€€He€argues€that€ð ðinterest€should€cease€accrual€upon€theÐ œì Ðsale€of€the€partnership€property,€and€application€of€the€fund€(by€set„off)€to€the€Plaintiffsðð€judgment.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐOn€September€21,€1994,€this€Court€affirmed€ð ðprejudgment€interest€calculated€from€April€21,€1987.ðð€Ð tÄ ÐOn€remand,€after€six€more€years€of€litigation€in€this€case€occasioned€by€Sweeneyððs€dissatisfactionÐ `° Ðwith€the€manner€of€winding€up€and€dissolution,€none€of€which€resulted€in€any€findings€that€hisÐ L œ Ðallegations€had€any€merit,€the€Trial€Court€ordered,€on€May€10,€2000,€that€prejudgment€interest€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€accrue€ð ðat€the€statutory€rate€of€ten€percent€(10%)€from€the€date€of€the€misappropriation€of€theÐ $ t Ðfunds,€being€April€21,€1987,€through€the€date€of€the€order€of€this€cause,€and€further€at€the€sameÐ  ` Ðstatutory€rate€post€judgment.ðð€€The€award€of€prejudgment€interest€is€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€Trial€Court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòBrandt€v.€BibÐ è 8  ÐEnterprises,€Ltd.,€óó986€Ô‡X XXX ÔS.W.2dÔ#†X XXX Ü#Ô€586,€595€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€€We€find€the€Trial€Court€did€notÐ Ô$  Ðabuse€its€discretion,€and€we€affirm€the€award€of€prejudgment€interest.€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€Sweeney€argues€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€final€Order,€setting€out€the€dollarÐ ˜è  Ðamount€of€the€Judgment,€does€not€correctly€compute€the€amount€owed€by€Sweeney€to€Mandrell€andÐ „Ô  ÐVaden.€€Specifically,€Sweeney€argues€that€$15,000€in€attorney€fees€were€paid€out€of€partnershipÐ pÀ Ðassets€and€a€$39,000€partnership€distribution€should€be€subtracted€from€the€amount€of€the€judgment,Ð \¬ Ðand€the€interest€thereon€reduced€accordingly.€€However,€the€Special€Master€found€that€no€attorneyÐ H˜ Ðfees€were€paid€out€of€partnership€accounts€to€fund€the€litigation.€€Moreover,€there€is€no€finding€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€$39,000€distribution,€which€was€occasioned€by€the€refinancing€of€the€building€by€the€threeÐ  p Ðpartners,€was€a€partnership€asset.€€The€Trial€Court€adopted€those€findings.€€There€is€material€evidenceÐ  \ Ðin€the€record€to€support€the€findings,€and€there€the€matter€ends.€€Ð øH ÐÌÔ‡X XXX Ôà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,Ô#†X XXX ó†#ÔÔ‡X XXX Ô€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ ”ä Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€MarshallÐ €Ð ÐPreston€Sweeney.Ð l¼ ÐÌÔ#†X XXX 2ˆ#Ô€€Ð D!” ÐÌÌÌÌ€à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE