WPC# d H콼gaFPk!һs*QLAܼB:[;?34ԟ5éKf#Ppjׂw7"ط1?9'\LZ,(C$ĝ¢.` l8۸m2!V9΢c e,aG{QGhB cb~ǣ XKLXA*+ y5*G =!1]O}c?vsWlẌ9ƴs0Kj}ʲ Zn" =`s8_8Wkg6+wx׏~bѢ~e ꕧ7xB 0 0 0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 0 0 50q h0` }0, 0 c0 F0 / / / / s/ c/ +/ +/ / / / / / ;/ O/< |/< |/ . .P m.P m.P m. .. W.{ . #/ U/// /Q+ d  q];+'h 0  ` { gEx@8[ xx@8qC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\GRAPHICS\DRAFT.WPGWPCD%&1D%&1''3XXXX,,51.+3 `! ''i((S)c))"G*"G*))|)|)|)-). )(k(<(y'&[%{%U %<I%&|&''j'\'3'3'T'T''13N `"0(0(''r&%%+&\O&=&9&6'b{''<](x(0(0(13 `#T#+T#+T#+'H+'H+'H+t+t+O+O+O+-++*\*U`*\ *\ *B$*B$**<*I*n*n***e)e)e))))Q)5)4)g((:(:(R(R(R((()))))*=*****I+I+ `$ c, c, h, i, u, ^, H, ;, $,s ,^ ,I ,0 , D, D, , ,H -H -H -1 -$--,-,Y,l+6+++*5*5*?*?*Te++ ,/k,,a,F,,+5O++*[*|)))) J*p * + x+ k+; ~+ + + , c, c,13N `%e +e + + + \+t #+M * *[*r?*Cl**)*+++ &, &,13J `& 50 50 0 / /U // F/! . . G.\ .\ .v -v -B -1 -w-w- e- e- e- N- N- N-k -k -k - - - k- k- k-\ - , [, [,R ,R , - - - - -} .} .( e.( e.( e.v .v .v . $/ $/ $/ 5/ 5/ L/ L/ L/h .P . . . . .` .k 8/ / / / / /( /( / / / / 0 0 50 50 `'/// / / / k/ J/t +/O /1 / . . / ,/ U/j u/j u/ 0 0 a0> 0 0 0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 0 0 50q h0` }0, 0 c0 F0 / / / / s/ c/ +/ +/ / / / / / ;/ O/< |/< |/ . .P m.P m.P m. .. W.{ . #/ U/// .  $  XfXXXXfXXXfXRXX Xf    1    !XfXX XRThisstatuteisnowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.57-4-302(3)(A)(Supp.1998).(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular\  `(Times NewRomanTT,cAZ"Arial Regular d(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd $"  *XңXXX*2IX*Xң   Ad FILED*XңX*2I  November25,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh P Pd 'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  T^y  <<= 8C____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d !  |XX'XDXX'TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  7ќr')<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rMALCOLMMILLS,JR.and D )  MALCOLMMILLS,III, D )    0      D )t')>.*jx` `@E ` 8ttxPE tߛ Plaintiffs/Appellees, D )   @ AppealNo. 0   0      D )   @ 01A019803CV00162 @ v.  0      D )  P   0      D )   @ DavidsonCircuit  ` KENHANCOCK,individuallyand D )   @ No.95C1080  p d/b/aHANCOCKHOMES& D ) 0  HANCOCKENTERPRISES, D ) @    0      D ) Defendants/Appellants, D )   `    0      D )INRE:NationalBondandSurety D )   ЀCorporation,   D )    0      D ) Surety/Appellant.   D )      COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEAPPEALFROMTHEDAVIDSONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEHAMILTONV.GAYDEN,JR.,JUDGE  ELLENTAYLORTURLEY2620OldLebanonPikeNashville,Tennessee37214 ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESJOELH.MOSELEYMoseley&MoseleySuite300,OneChurchStreet101ChurchStreetNashville,Tennessee372011609 ATTORNEYFORSURETY/APPELLANT  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  77<XXdXXd7  7#Xd#    WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE h;679 77<XXdXXd7  77]XXdXXd7    |OPINION      |  Thisappealinvolvestheliabilityofasuretyuponabondgivenforappeal p totheTennesseeCourtofAppealsfromajudgmentintheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCounty.Wemustdeterminewhetherthisappealbondcoversthefeesawardedtotheappellees'attorneyonthebasisofthiscourt'sdeterminationthattheappealwaswrongfullyprosecutedagainsttheappellees.Thetrialcourtheldthat| |theappealbonddidincludetheattorneyfeesandweaffirmthecourt's h  decisiononappeal.  ||I.FACTS  0  Theappelleesinthisaction,MalcolmMills,Jr.andMalcolmMills,III(hereinafter"Appellees"),werethesuccessfulplaintiffsinaconsumerfraudcasewhichwastriedinboththeGeneralSessionsandtheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCounty.Bothcourtsfoundthat||thedefendants,KenHancock,individuallyand %u doingbusinessasHancockHomes&HancockEnterprises(hereinafter"Defendants"),wereguiltyoffraudandhadviolatedthetermsoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActinadealinvolvingthesaleofausedmobilehome.BothcourtsawardedtrebledamagestoAppelleesandtheCircuitCourtruledthatDefendantswereguiltyofconversion. TheappellantinthisactionisthesuretyontheappealbondwhichwasfiledbyDefendantswhentheyappealedtheadversejudgmentinthetrialcourt.Thebond,whichwasintheamountof$1000,wasfiledwiththeCircuitCourtonaformprovidedbythecourtclerkandwassignedbyDefendantsasprincipalandbyNationalBondandSuretyCorporationassurety(hereinafter"Appellant").Thebondprovidesinrelevantpartasfollows:8 Thatwe,KenHancock,individually,andd/b/aHancockHomesandHancockEnterprises,Principal,andNationalBondandSuretyCorp.,Surety,areheldandfirmlybounduntoMalcolmMills,Jr.andMalcolmMills,IIIortheircertainattorneys,executors,administrators,orassignsinthepenalsumofONETHOUSANDDOLLARS($1,000),forthetruepaymentwhereofwebindourselves,ourheirs,executorsandadministratorsfirmlybythesepresents.  ! !  ]94> ThebondfurtherdesignatedthatDefendantsandAppellant"shall...incasetheyfail[toprosecutetheirappealwitheffect],payandsatisfythedamagesandcostswhichmaybeawardedagainstthemforwrongfullyprosecutingsaidappeal,andsatisfythejudgmentofsaidCourtofAppealsthereon." TheCourtofAppealsdismissedtheappealfindingthatitwasfrivolousandorderingthatjudgmentberenderedagainstDefendantsasprincipalandagainstNationalBondandSuretyassuretyforcostsofthisappeal.Thecourt'sorderdirectedthatthecaseberemandedtothetrialcourtfortheentryofanappropriatejudgmentastoAppellees'damagesresultingfromthefrivolousappeal.Onremand,thetrialcourtenteredafinaljudgmentwhichawardedAppellees'attorney,EllenTaylorTurley,ajudgmentof$920againstDefendantsonly.Inaddition,thecourtawardedAppelleesajudgmentof$446forthepostjudgmentinterestwhichhadaccruedduringthependencyoftheappeal. InJanuaryof1998,Appellantpaidthe$978balanceofthebondintocourt.Appellanthadpreviouslypaid$22incourtcost.Thenextmonth,Ms.TurleymadeamotionthatthecourtreleasetoherthefundsdepositedwiththecourtbyAppellantsinceDefendantshadnotyetpaidtoherthefeesthecourthadawardedher. ThetrialcourtruledthatthetermsoftheCircuitCourtappealsbondshouldbeenforcedsuchthatthe$978heldbytheCircuitCourtClerkshouldbepaidtoMs.Turleyaspaymenttowardsthetrialcourt'sawardofattorneyfeestoMs.TurleyfortheDefendants'frivolousappeal.   II.ISSUE  .p)4  m Appellantinsiststhatthecourterredinholdingthatthisbond,anappellatecourtcostbond,canbeusedtosatisfyajudgmentforattorneyfees.Appellantreliesonalineofcaseswhichaddresstheinterpretationofstatutorybonds,particularly AetnaCasualty&SuretyCo.v.Woods ,565S.W.2d861(Tenn. 6e1>  1978). Aetna involvedasurety'sliabilityonabondenteredintopursuanttoTenn. 73@ CodeAnn.57158(3)  #  1      ,thestatutewhich,atthattime,requiredeveryTennessean   withaliquorlicencestopostabondwiththeCommissionerofRevenue.Theprincipaloperatedahotelcorporationwhichincludedaloungewhereliquorwassoldbythedrink.Afterthecommissionercollectedfromthesuretytheprincipal'sdelinquenttaxliabilitiesnotonlyfromthesaleofliquorbutalsofromthesales,franchiseandexcisetaxesfromthehoteloperations,thesuretybroughtthisactiontorecoveralltaxesotherthanthoseincurredfromthesaleofliquorbythedrink.Inholdingthatthesuretywasonlyliableforthelattertaxes,thecourtmadethefollowingstatementsaboutstatutorybonds:8 Wemayassume...thatthepurposeofthepartiesinexecutingthisbondwastocomplywiththerequirementsofthatstatute,nothingmoreandnothingless.  ! ! Ѐ8  0 Althoughabondisnonethelessacontractbecauseitis 8 requiredbyastatute,statutorybondsareconstruedinthelightofthestatutecreatingtheobligationsecuredandthepurposesforwhichthebondisrequired,asdisclosedinthestatute.Thestatutewhichprovidesforthegivingofabondbecomesapartofthebondandimportsintothebondanyconditionsprescribedbythestatutewhicharenotinfactincludedinthebondaswritten.Althoughtheobligorandhissuretymayassumeagreaterobligationthanthatrequiredbythestatute,itispresumedthattheintentionofthepartieswastoexecutesuchabondasthelawrequired....  ! ! 8  0 Theobligationsunderabondrequiredbystatutearetobemeasuredbytheparticularstatuterequiringthebond,togetherwithotherapplicablestatutes....And,ifastatutorybondcontainsconditionsthatarenotprescribedbythestatute,suchconditionsmaybeeliminatedassurplusage.  ! ! Ѐ Id. at864. 8'"%  Afterdeterminingthattheauthorizingstatuterequiredthesuretytoindemnifytheprincipalagainstonlythosetaxesincurredasaresultofsellingliquorbythedrink,thecourtstatedthatitcould"assumethattheCommissionerindraftingthebondintendedtoexactfromtheobligorandsuretytheobligationrequiredbythestatuteandnomore,sincethatwastheextentoftheCommissioner'sdutyinthisrespectunderthestatute." Id. at866.Thebonditself c2-3 statedthatitcoveredtaxeswhichincluded"but[were]notlimitedto"thoseinSection57157. Id. Inlightofthecontextofthesewordsandtheoverallpurpose 507 ofthestatute,thecourtrejectedtheCommissioner'sargumentthatthislanguage 1729 indicatedanintenttoincludetaxesotherthanthoseimposedbySection57157. Id.  H  AppealbondsaremandatedbyRule6,Tenn.R.App.P.,whichisentitled"SecurityforCostsonAppeal."Thisrulerequiresthat,withafewexceptions,anappellantmustfileinthetrialcourtabondforthecostsonappeal.Theruleisclearthatitspurposeis"tosecurethepaymentofcostsiftheappealisfinallydismissed."Tenn.R.App.P.6.Atthetimethesebondswerefiled,Rule6requiredthecostbondtobeintheamountof$1000. Appellantarguesthattheobviousintentofthepartieswastopostonlyabondforappellatecourtcosts.HadDefendantsandAppellantintendedthebondtocovermore,itwouldhavebeenhigherthan$1000andwouldhaveinvolvedastaypursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure62.Rule62.05requiresthatabondstayingthejudgmentbeintheamount"ofthejudgmentinfull,interest,damagesfordelay,andcostsonappeal."ItisAppellant'scontention,thatwhentheobligationsofthisbondaremeasuredbyRule6oftheRulesofAppellateProcedureandRule62ortheRulesofCivilProcedure,theonlyproperconclusionisthatthiswasabondforappellatecourtcost,nothingmoreandnothingless.Thus,theportionoftheappealbondreferencingattorneyfeesshouldbedisregardedassurpluslanguage. AftercarefullyconsideringAppellant'sargument,werespectfullydisagreefindingthatwecannotignoretheplainandclearlanguageofthisappealbond.Theattorneyfeesatissuehereweredamagesawardedforthewrongfulprosecutionofthisappeal.Thebond,onitsface,obligatesthesuretytosatisfythedamagesawardedagainstDefendant"forwrongfullyprosecuting[this]appeal."Inaddition,thebondbeginsbystatingthatthePrincipalandtheSurety"areheldandfirmlyboundunto[Appellees]ortheircertainattorneys...inthepenalsum J1,8 of...$1,000.00."(emphasisadded).Asawellknownprincipleofcontractinterpretation,ourcourtshavestatedthat"[t]hecourtwilllooktothematerialcontainedwithinthefourcornersoftheinstrumenttoascertainitsmeaningasanexpressionoftheparties'intent." Gredigv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co. , 72@ 891S.W.2d909,912(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)(citing BobPearsallMotors,Inc.v. E94B RegalChrysler-Plymouth,Inc. ,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975)).   Wedonotfindthatthereasoningpronouncedin Aetna isapplicableinthe 3 instantcasewherethebondlanguageindisputablyobligatesthesuretytopaythedamagesandcostsforwrongfullyprosecutingtheappeal.In Aetna ,thelanguage  f inthebondwasunclearastowhichtaxeswerecovered,andthecourtresolvedtheuncertaintyinthebondbylookingtothestatute. SeealsoSheltonDentalAssoc. I  v.LaFevre ,767S.W.2d665(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(wherelanguageinbond 4  createdambiguity,courtlookedtostatutewhichrequiredthebondtodeterminetheparties'intentandthendisregardedambiguoussurpluslanguage).However,where,asintheinstantcase,themeaningofthebond'splainlanguageisuncontrovertible,thereisnoneedtolookoutsideofthefourcornersofthebondtoascertaintheparties'intent. Wethereforefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinholdingthatthetermsoftheappealbondshouldbeenforced.Thebond,aswehaveinterpretedit,doesnotconflictwithRule6oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Itmerelyprovidesthat,inadditiontocoveringthecostsasrequiredbyRule6,DefendantsandAppellantareresponsibleforsatisfyinganydamagesawardedforthewrongfulprosecutionoftheappeal.Ourcourtshaveacknowledgedthat"theobligorandhissuretymayassumeagreaterobligationthanthatrequiredbythestatute." Aetna ,565S.W.2dat864(citing VarnerConstr.Co.v.Mid-South 7&!* Specialties,Inc. ,547S.W.2d569,571(Tenn.1977)).Inthiscase,Appellantdid '"#, assumeadditionalliabilitybysigningthisparticularbond.Itcannotnowescapeitscontractualobligationasoutlinedinthefourcornersofthebond.  III.CONCLUSION  5.)4 9 Thetrialcourtisaffirmed.WeholdthatAppellantassuretyisliableundertheappealbondfortheattorneyfeesawardedtoAppellees'attorneyasaresultofthefrivolousappealbroughtbyDefendants.WedirectthattheCircuitCourtclerk,whoholdsthe$978balanceofthebondondeposit,paythissumtoAppellees'attorneytotheextentthatthejudgmenthasnotyetbeensatisfied.Therefore,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtoforanyfurthernecessary Z94B proceedingsinconformitywiththisopinion.ThecostsonappealareshouldbetaxedtoAppellants.̀  0      D _______________________________  0      D X]X WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  p  CONCUR:_________________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S._________________________________________HENRYF.TODD,JUDGE