ÿWPCß 2# ÌU:× % 0(b ?w@K4‹Ÿ® 0l¶ 0D" 0Jf 0T° 0^ 0hb 0rÊ 0|< 0†¸ 0> 1uÎ 0dC B§ AQÄ Æ 0DÛ 0@ 0D_ D/£ BÒ D3ï U *" B)L DCu AM¸  sv~ŽvÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - D D b D D Ó€ê‚_#3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌNovember€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€*ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóEven€under€prior€law€a€court€of€chancery€had€no€jurisdiction€to€set€aside€an€award€except€forÏfraud€or€mistake.€€òòGraham€v.€Batesóó,€45€S.W.›€465€(Tenn.€Ch.€œApp›.€1898).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€߀XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌWILLIAM€W.€MILLSAPS€and€wife,à à)ÌMARTHA€MILLSAPS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9704„CH„00160ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMarion€Chancery̜ـ!ÙßR€-.,A1-j|D` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€5477ÌROBERTSON„VAUGHNà àà àà à)ÌCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€*¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÔ€*XÔÌÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MARION€COUNTYÌAT€JASPER,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JEFFREY€STEWART,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌROBERT€L.€HUSKEYÌ514€Hillsboro€BoulevardÌManchester,€Tennessee€37355Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌBEN€P.€LYNCHÌ107€First€Avenue,€N.E.ÌP.€O.€Box€310ÌWinchester,€Tennessee€37398Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€œIN€PART;›€à@ àREVERSED€IN€PART;Ìà@ à€œMODIFIED€AND›€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€*„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€*XÔÌÌà àà àThis€is€an€action€to€enforce€an€arbitratorððs€award€or€for€damages€forÏfailing€to€comply€with€the€award.€€The€trial€judge€refused€to€enforce€the€award€onÏthe€ground€that€it€was€unreasonable,€inequitable,€and€shocking€to€the€conscienceÏof€the€court.€€We€reverse€that€conclusion€and€order€that€the€award€be€enforced€inÏaccordance€with€the€lower€courtððs€alternative€findings.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€April€of€1986,€œthe€Reverend›€and€Mrs.€Millsaps€hired€Robertson„Vaughn€Construction€Co.,€Inc.€to€construct€a€house€in€Monteagle.€€The€cost„plusÏcontract€called€for€the€new€house€to€be€connected€to€an€existing€house€on€the€lot.€ÍAs€the€work€proceeded,€the€Millsaps€became€dissatisfied€with€the€quality€of€theÏwork€and€filed€suit€against€the€contractor€for€damages.€€Before€the€case€came€toÏtrial,€however,€the€parties€agreed€to€submit€the€dispute€to€arbitration€„„€a€decisionÏthat€may€set€alternative€dispute€resolution€back€a€œgeneration.›ÌÌà àà àThe€record€is€not€clear€about€the€details€of€the€arbitrationÏproceeding,€but€the€arbitrator€made€his€award€on€May€10,€1990.€€The€award€listedÏtwelve€specific€items€for€the€contractor€to€complete€ð ðat€no€further€chargeðð€to€theÏowners.€€In€addition,€the€award€ordered€the€contractor€to€complete€œa›€three€œpage,›Ïbarely€œlegible,›€handwritten€ð ðpunch€listðð€that€had€been€prepared€by€the€ownerððsÏformer€attorney.€€The€remaining€work€was€to€be€supervised€by€an€architect€hiredÏby€the€owners,€and€the€work€was€to€be€completed€within€thirty€days€of€the€hiring€ofÏthe€architect.€€The€contractor€took€no€action€to€modify€or€vacate€the€award.ÌÌà àà àThe€ownerððs€architect€issued€a€work€œorder,›€and€after€a€considerableÏdelay,€the€contractor€attempted€to€make€some€of€the€corrections.€€The€workÏstretched€into€the€next€year,€however,€and€the€owners€finally€terminated€theÏcontractorððs€efforts€and€filed€this€action€on€the€award.ÌÌà àà àThe€contractor€filed€a€œcounter„claim,›€alleging€that€it€had€performedÏwork€not€covered€by€the€arbitration€award€and€that€the€owners€were€responsibleÏfor€the€costs€incurred€in€performing€the€work€not€covered€by€the€award.ÌÌà àà àThe€Chancery€Court€of€Marion€County€granted€partial€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€owners.€€The€court€found€that€the€parties€were€bound€by€the€termsÏand€conditions€of€the€award€because€the€time€to€appeal€any€part€of€the€award€hadÏpassed.€€The€order€left€for€a€future€hearing€the€questions€of€what€part€of€the€awardÏhad€not€been€complied€with,€whether€the€defendant€should€be€allowed€toÏcomplete€the€remaining€items,€and,€if€not,€what€would€be€the€reasonable€cost€ofÏcompletion.ÌÌà àà àAfter€a€œsubsequent€hearing,›€the€trial€judge€filed€a€memorandum€andÏorder€containing€the€following€findings:€that€the€arbitratorððs€award€shocked€theÏconscience€of€the€court;€that€the€award€ordered€the€contractor€to€performÏthousands€of€dollars€worth€of€work€for€which€the€owners€would€otherwise€haveÏbeen€liable€on€the€cost„plus€contract;€that€it€was€equally€shocking€that€theÏcontractor€did€not€appeal€the€award;€that€the€contractor€had€performed€work€notÏcovered€by€the€award€for€which€the€plaintiffs€were€liable;€that€the€amount€due€theÏcontractor€was€equal€to€or€greater€than€the€amount€due€the€plaintiffs€for€the€itemsÏleft€outstanding€on€the€award.ÌÌà àà àThe€order€contained€two€alternative€judgments:€The€first€simplyÏdismissed€the€complaint€because€the€owners€did€not€prove€that€enforcement€ofÏthe€arbitratorððs€award€would€be€equitable,€given€the€uncompensated€benefitsÍalready€bestowed€on€them.€€The€alternative€order,€to€apply€if€an€appellate€courtÏordered€the€enforcement€of€the€arbitratorððs€award,€contained€findings€of€the€itemsÏin€the€award€that€had€been€completed€and€the€items€that€remained€unfinished.€ÏFinally,€the€trial€judge€entered€a€$2,844.00€judgment€on€the€contractorððsÏcounterclaim.ÌÔ  Ôâââââ  âÌà@ àò òII.ÌÓ  Óa.€€à àArbitration€in€Generaló óÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àWith€the€passage€of€the€Uniform€Arbitration€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏœ29„5„301„„320,›€arbitration€took€on€a€new€life€in€Tennessee.€€(òòSeeóó€œòòMeirowsky›€v.ÏœPhipps›óó,€432€œS.W.2d›€885€œ(1968)€for€the€status€of€arbitration€under€prior€law.)›€€ð ðTheÏact€governs€the€scope€of€judicial€review€of€arbitration€awards.ðð€€òòInternationalÏTalent€Group,€Inc.€v.€œCopyright›€Management,€Inc.óó,€769€œS.W.2d›€œ217€at€218›€(Tenn.ÏœApp›.€1988).€€Only€in€limited€circumstances€may€the€courts€vacate,€modify,€orÏcorrect€the€award.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€(See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313€on€vacation€and€ðð€29„5„314€on€modification€or€correction.)€€And€these€powers€must€be€invoked€in€a€timelyÏmanner;€generally€within€ninety€days€of€the€date€a€copy€of€the€award€is€deliveredÏto€the€applicant.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€the€contractor€did€not€ask€the€court€to€modify€or€correctÏthe€award,€and€to€this€date,€has€not€asserted€that€any€of€the€statutory€reasons€forÏmodification€or€correction€exist.€€Although€we€are€puzzled,€as€the€trial€judge€was,Ïwhy€the€arbitrator€ordered€the€contractor€to€perform€several€items€of€newÏconstruction€at€no€cost€to€the€owners,€the€time€to€correct€that€part€of€the€order€isÏœpast,›€and€the€courtððs€ability€to€correct€the€award€is€severely€limited.€€ð ðAs€long€asÏthe€arbitrator€is,€arguably,€construing€or€applying€the€contract€and€acting€withinÏthe€scope€of€his€authority,€the€fact€that€a€court€is€convinced€he€committed€seriousÏerror€does€not€suffice€to€overturn€his€decision.ðð€€òòArnold€v.€Morgan€œKeegan›€&€Co.,ÏInc.óó,€914€œS.W.2d›€445€at€449€(Tenn.€1996).€€Therefore,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€in€error€insofar€as€its€order€may€be€interpreted€as€a€refusal€toÏenforce€the€award€because€it€was€erroneous€or€because€the€court€thought€theÏaward€went€too€far.ÌÌà@ àò òb.€€The€Offset€Findingsó óÌÌà àà àThe€trial€courtððs€order€contained€a€finding€that€the€ð ðvalue€of€the€workÏand€materials€provided€[by€the€contractor]€and€unpaid€for€is€equal€to€or€greaterÏthan€any€obligation€owed€to€Plaintiffs€by€the€Defendant.ðð€€We€think€this€is€aÏsignificant€finding,€even€though€neither€party€chose€to€address€it€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àAn€action€may€be€brought€on€an€arbitratorððs€award€as€on€an€ordinaryÏcontract.€€òòSeeóó€4€œAm.€Jur.€2d›€òòAlternative€Dispute€Resolutionóó€ðð€218.€€It€follows€thatÏthe€defendant€in€the€action€may€plead€set€off€or€recoupment.€€òòHoward€v.ÏAbernathyóó,€751€œS.W.2d›€432€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1988);€òòœLowry›€v.€œHawesóó,›€57€Tenn.€688Ïœ(1873).›€€That€is€how€we€view€the€state€of€the€pleadings€at€the€time€of€the€hearingÏbelow:€œ€the›€owners€had€sued€for€enforcement€of€the€award€or,€in€the€alternative,€aÏmoney€judgment;€the€contractor€denied€owing€anything€on€the€award€and€filed€aÏcounterclaim€for€money€due€from€the€owners€(1)€as€a€result€of€the€cost€plus€natureÏof€the€original€contract€and€(2)€the€extra€work€performed€that€fell€outside€of€theÏoriginal€contract.€€Having€made€the€finding€quoted€above,€the€trial€judge€deniedÏany€recovery€to€the€owners€and€entered€judgment€on€the€contractorððsÏcounterclaim.ÌÌà àà àœThat›€would€ordinarily€end€the€matter,€since€the€appellants€do€notÏattack€that€finding€on€appeal.€€The€contractor,€however,€does€not€rely€on€it€either.€ÏOn€appeal,€he€insists€that€the€original€award€should€not€be€enforced€because€theÏagreement€to€arbitrate€is€not€in€the€record.€€We€think€that€contention€comes€muchÏtoo€late€since€the€parties€obviously€agreed€to€arbitration,€went€through€theÏprocess,€and€allowed€the€award€to€become€final.€€The€contractor,€in€theÏalternative,€agrees€to€perform€the€work€in€the€œaward€that›€the€trial€judge€found€wasÏyet€incomplete.€€Therefore,€we€think€the€trial€judgeððs€alternative€findings€representÏa€just€resolution€of€this€controversy.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.Ìà@ àThe€Alternative€Findingó óÌÌà àà àIn€the€final€order,€the€trial€judge€specifically€found€the€items€in€theÏarbitratorððs€award€that€remained€to€be€completed.€€On€appeal,€the€contractorÏagrees€to€comply€with€the€courtððs€alternative€œorder.›€€We€think€that€œwill€bring€this›Ïunfortunate€œcase€to€an€end.›€€œAlthough›€the€owners€protest€that€it€is€futile€to€give€theÏcontractor€more€time€to€complete€the€contract,€the€owners€are€not€entirelyÏblameless€in€the€search€for€the€reasons€why€œit›€has€taken€more€than€ten€years€toÏœend€this€controversy.›€€The€contractor€will€be€given€sixty€days€from€the€date€theÏmandate€issues€from€this€court€to€complete€the€items€listed€as€unfinished€in€theÏtrial€courtððs€alternative€judgment.€€In€the€event€the€contractor€does€not€comply€withÏthe€courtððs€order€„„€if€reasonably€allowed€to€do€so€„„€it€will€pay€the€owners€the€costÏto€œcomply.€€The€judgment€of€$2,844.00€entered€on€the€contractorððs€counterclaim€isÏaffirmed.›ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€owners€also€appeal€the€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€tax€the€costs€ofÏtwo€discovery€depositions€to€the€contractor.€€œThe€depositions€were€of€the€architectÏwho€was€to€oversee€the€completion€of€the€arbitratorððs€award€and€of€a€contractorÍwho€was€to€testify€about€the€costs€to€complete€the€award.€€The›€judge€initially€heldÏthat€there€was€no€proof€that€the€owners€had€to€pay€the€costs€for€the€œarchitect.€ÏWhen€the€owners›€sought€a€new€trial€on€their€motion,€the€judge€specifically€heldÏthat€the€depositions€were€not€taken€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€Proc.€26.02(4)(A)(ii)Ïor€(B).ÌÌà àà àThe€relevant€œportions›€of€Rule€26.02€œread›€as€follows:ÌÌœÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(4)€TRIAL€PREPARATION:€EXPERTS.€DiscoveryÏof€facts€known€and€opinions€held€by€experts,€otherwiseÏdiscoverable€under€the€provisions€of€subdivision€(1)€ofÏthis€rule€and€acquired€or€developed€in€anticipation€ofÏlitigation€or€for€trial,€may€be€obtained€only€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(ii)€A€party€may€also€depose€any€other€partyððsÏexpert€witness€expected€to€testify€at€trial.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(B)€A€party€may€not€discover€the€identity€of,€factsÏknown€by,€or€opinions€held€by€an€expert€who€has€beenÏconsulted€by€another€party€in€anticipation€of€litigationÏor€preparation€for€trial€and€who€is€not€to€be€called€as€aÏwitness€at€trial€except€as€provided€in€Rule€35.02€orÏupon€a€showing€that€the€party€seeking€discoveryÏcannot€obtain€facts€or€opinions€on€the€same€subject€byÏother€means.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(C)€Unless€manifest€injustice€would€result,€(i)€theÏcourt€shall€require€that€the€party€seeking€discovery€payÏthe€expert€a€reasonable€fee€for€time€spent€inÏresponding€to€discovery€under€subdivisions€(4)(A)(ii)Ïand€(4)(B)€of€this€rule;€and€(ii)€with€respect€to€discoveryÏobtained€under€sudivision€(4)(A)(ii)€of€this€rule€the€courtÍmay€require,€and€with€respect€to€discovery€obtainedÏunder€subdivision€(4)(B)€of€this€rule€the€court€shallÏrequire,€the€party€seeking€discovery€to€pay€the€otherÏparty€a€fair€portion€of€the€fees€and€expensesÏreasonably€incurred€by€the€latter€party€in€obtainingÏfacts€and€opinions€from€the€expert.ÌÌÌÌ›ÓÓà àà àœRule€26.02(4)€allows€a€party€to€discover€the€opinions€of€an€oppositeÏpartyððs€expert€witness€(1)€if€the€expert€is€expected€to€testify€at€trial€or€(2)€if€theÏexpert€is€not€expected€to€testify€at€trial,€by€requesting€the€report€available€underÏRule€35.02€or€by€showing€that€the€facts€and€opinions€cannot€be€obtained€by€otherÏmeans.›ÌÌà àà àIt€is€obvious€that€œthis€case€involves€only›€an€expert€expected€to€testifyÏat€trial.€€Subdivision€œ(C)›€œof€Rule€26.02(4)€provides›€in€that€event€that€the€court€œòòshallóó,Ïunless€manifest€injustice€would€result,€require€the€party€seeking€discovery€to€payÏa€reasonable€fee€to€the€expert€for€time€spent€in€responding€to€discovery,€and€òòmayóóÏrequire€the€party€seeking€discovery€to€pay€the€other€party€a€fair€portion€of€the€feesÏand€expenses€reasonably€incurred€in€obtaining€facts€and€opinions€from€theÏexpert.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€found€as€fact€that€the€depositions€were€not€takenÏpursuant€to€Rule€26.02(4)(A)(ii).€€With€respect€to€the€architect,€we€agree.€€TheÏinformation€sought€from€him€was€what€had€occurred€and€what€remained€to€beÍdone.€In€other€words,€the€sort€of€information€one€would€get€from€a€fact€witness,€notÏan€expert.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€other€witness,€who€was€to€give€an€opinion€onÏwhat€it€would€cost€to€complete€the€work,€we€think€the€trial€judge€erred€in€holdingÏthat€he€did€not€come€within€the€rule.€€We€are,€however,€at€a€loss€to€discover€fromÏthe€record€the€charges€that€would€be€due€to€him€for€his€time€spent€in€respondingÏto€discovery€or€the€costs€the€owners€incurred€in€obtaining€his€opinion.€€Therefore,Ïfor€a€lack€of€relevant€proof€we€affirm€the€trial€judgeððs€decision€not€to€award€anyÏcosts€to€the€appellants.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€in€part€and€modified€toÏenforce€the€alternative€disposition€suggested€in€the€order.€€In€all€other€respectsÏthe€judgment€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏMarion€County€for€further€proceedings.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€equally€to€theÏappellants€and€the€appellee.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÇÑ Ü ÑÑ X ÑÑ  Ñ