WPCs ~<mOלfOKm֦VM*zN q%Wk4zB%ƭ9A'MwYBnqZIxJ#,WɵKΊP3ZJ0q2oȻYp9='ú5Ms~J9 RLG“&~R^m&6U˖|2z+z]N-dC!4G}_ GxKDW"g"f;NB=֎UCDw."1V+IRupdii  R&LM3BV.iqᝫzdv%2Eج_p[ECX.P!jgϏCH B[F2-AAHhb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #  r8 0DN`EhjJUNbhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 0pppp B[[ 0x D3 D-O 0K|| AS 0 0D AY|+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular^p+ d 3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0  R$      2     _T.C.A.4515115(2000)providesthefollowing:     ` Atitlepledgelendershallnot: 8    ` H` ` ` 0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#***(#(#   8 ` (2)Makeanyagreementgivingthetitlepledgelenderanyrecourseagainstthe H  _pledgor_Ԁotherthanthetitlepledgelendersrighttotakepossessionofthetitled  \ personalpropertyandcertificateoftitleuponthe_pledgor_sdefaultorfailureto   redeem,andtosellorotherwisedisposeofthetitledpersonalpropertyin    accordancewiththeprovisionsofthischapter....Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1     _T.C.A.295319(2000)providesinpertinentpart,     ` (a)Anappealmaybetakenfrom: 8    ` (1)Anorderdenyinganapplicationtocompelarbitrationmadeunder295303....   R$      3     _& L T.C.A.4515113(a)(2000)providesthat [t]itlepledgeagreementsandpropertypledgeagreementsmade  pursuanttothischaptershallnotexceedthirty(30)daysinlength.However,suchagreementsmayprovideforrenewals t foradditionalthirtydayperiods....'L~  R$      4     _Otherjurisdictionshaveconcludedthatconsumerprotectionactclaimsarenotexemptfromarbitration.See   _Gergel_Ԁv.HighViewHomes,LLC, 996P.2d233,23637(Colo.Ct.App.1999); Alexanderv._Everhart_ ,7P.3d1282, t 1285(_Kan_.Ct.App.2000); _Conseco_ԀFin.Serv.Corp.v.Wilder ,47S.W.3d335,340(Ky.Ct.App.2001); _Ahern_Ԁv. : TollBros.,Inc. ,C/ANo.187917,2001WL543421,at*3(Va.Cir.Ct.,filedFebruary16,2001); Steinv._Geonerco_, P Inc. ,17P.3d1266,1270(Wash.Ct.App.2001).  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.84d d 8         0  ` d(|3$ !.84d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.84d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8d d8     _  z8wXXdd 8  @ zINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#z #Ԉ &   October15,2001Session L XX&Xz #zXXX&#JOY_MCVEY_ԀPORTERv.MONEYTREEFINANCECORPORATIONII, J LLCD/B/ACASHEXPRESS,IIXX&Xz   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWashingtonCounty  ^ @@No.33648JeanA.Stanley,Judge  J FILEDNOVEMBER28,2001 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101142_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      Theplaintiff,Joy_McVey_ԀPorter,enteredintoaloanagreement!referredtoasatitlepledge  agreement!withthedefendant,MoneyTreeFinanceCorporationII,LLCd/b/aCashExpress,II x ( MoneyTree).Theagreementcontainsanarbitrationprovisionwhereinthepartiesagreeto d arbitratealldisputes arisingoutoftheagreement.Pursuanttotheagreement,MoneyTreeloaned P Porter$500inexchangeforthetitletoherautomobile.WhenPorterdefaulted,MoneyTreesold < hervehicleandattemptedtocollecttheloandeficiencyremainingafterthesale.MoneyTrees (x effortspromptedPortertofilethissuitallegingthatMoneyTreescollectioneffortsviolatedthe d TennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,_T.C.A._Ԁ4718101,etseq.PorteralsoallegesthatMoney P TreeviolatedtheFederalTruthinLendingAct,15U.S.C.1601,etseq.,byfailingtoprovidean < accuratestatementofallfinancingchargesinthebodyoftheagreement.MoneyTreemovedthe ( courttorequirearbitration.ThetrialcourtheldthatPorterwasnotrequiredtosubmitherclaimsto  arbitrationbecause,accordingtothelowercourt,thoseclaimsdonot _aris[e_]outoftheagreement.  MoneyTreeappealspursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ295319(a)(1). #  1      ׀Wereverse.   Tenn.R.App.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt t  Reversed;CaseRemanded  `!    CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,#zXX&#XX&X.zdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._, 8#" andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. $$t# MichaelA._Eastridge_,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MoneyTreeFinanceCorporation %L!% II,LLC,d/b/a,CashExpress,II. &8"&   '$#' WilliamL.FranciscoandEricD.Miller,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Joy_McVey_   Porter.  _  OPINION #zXXX& #XX&Xz t #zXXX&#XX&Xz  @)I. L    PorterandMoneyTreeenteredintoatitlepledgeagreement( theagreement),acontract $ t governedbytheTennesseeTitlePledgeAct,T.C.A.4515101,etseq.(2000),pursuanttowhich  ` MoneyTreeloanedPorter$500.Assecurityfortheloan,Porterpledgedthetitletoher1987Nissan  L  Maximaautomobile.Theagreementcontainsanarbitrationclauserequiringthepartiestoarbitrate  8   anyandalldisputesordisagreementsbetween[them]arisingoutofthisAgreement....Shortly $  afterenteringintotheagreement,Porterdefaultedontheloan.Asaresult,MoneyTreerepossessed   hervehicleandsoldit.Thereafter,MoneyTreeclaimedthatPorterowedadeficiencyontheloan   of$535.67.UponPorter'sfailuretopaythedeficiency,MoneyTreesentheraletterdemanding   paymentandthreateningtoturnthematterovertoacollectionagency.     MoneyTree'sattemptedcollectionofthedeficiencypromptedPortertofilethecomplaint \ inthiscase.Inhercomplaint,PorterallegesthatMoneyTreeseffortswithrespecttothedeficiency H areprohibitedbyT.C.A.4515115(2)  #  2      ,aprovisionoftheTennesseeTitlePledgeActarguably 4 prohibitingatitlepledgelenderfrompursuingadeficiencyagainstapledgorfollowingthesaleof  p thepledgors personalproperty.PorterarguesthatMoneyTreesattemptstocollectthedeficiency  \ amounttoviolationsoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct( TCPA),which(1)prohibitsone H fromrepresentingthataconsumertransactionconfersarightorremedythatisprohibitedbylaw, 4 and(2)prohibitsanactthatisdeceptivetoaconsumer.SeeT.C.A.4718104(b)(12),(27)   (2001).PorteralsoallegesthatMoneyTreeviolatedtheFederalTruthinLendingAct( TILA),    15U.S.C.1601,etseq.(1998),byfailingtoprovideherwithastatementofthetermsandextra  financingchargesassociatedwithrenewalperiodsintheagreement,asrequiredbyT.C.A4515  113(a) #  3      .     Pursuanttotheagreementsarbitrationclause,MoneyTreefiledamotiontocompelPorter t toarbitrateherclaims.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,concludingthatPortersclaimsdonot ` relatetothecontract,andhencePorterisnotrequiredtoarbitratethem.Thisappealfollowed.On L  appeal,MoneyTreearguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitrefusedtocompelarbitration.#zXXX&"# 8  @)XX&XzII. 6    Ourstandardofreviewisdenovoupontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionof ^  correctnessastothetrialcourtsfactualfindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceis J  otherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn. 6  1993).Reviewofquestionsoflawisdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness. Campbellv. "  FloridaSteelCorp., 919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996).   @vv(III.    Thearbitrationclauseinthiscaseprovidesasfollows: n   8 ` Anyandalldisputesordisagreementsbetweenpartiesarisingoutof F thisAgreementoranyprioragreementbetweenthem(saveand 2 excepttheLendersrightstoenforcethePledgor(s)payment n obligations,intheeventofdefault,byjudicialorotherprocess)shall  Z bedecidedbyarbitrationandinaccordancewiththeproceduralrules F oftheAmericanArbitrationAssociationaspresentlypublishedand 2 existing.Thepartiesagreetobeboundbythedecisionofthe  arbitrator(s).Thearbitrationproceedingshallbeacondition   precedenttoanyothercourtproceedingandshalltakeplacein  DavidsonCounty,Tennessee.Notwithstandingtheapplicabilityof  anyotherprovisionofthisAgreementtheFederalArbitrationAct,9 ~  U.S.C.Section1ff[sic]shallcontroltheconstruction,interpretation, j! applicationofthisparagraph.Anyissueastowhetherthis V"  Agreementissubjecttoarbitrationshallbedeterminedbythe B#! arbitrator..$~"` x` x (Emphasisadded). &V!$  '.#&   Accordingtothetermsofthearbitrationprovision,theagreementis control[led]bythe  FederalArbitrationAct( theFAA).Section2oftheFAA,9U.S.C.2(1999),providesthat:    8 ` Awrittenprovisioninanymaritimetransactionoracontract t evidencingatransactioninvolvingcommercetosettlebyarbitration ` acontroversythereafterarisingoutofsuchcontractortransaction,or L  therefusaltoperformthewholeoranypartthereof,oranagreement 8  inwritingtosubmittoarbitrationanexistingcontroversyarisingout $ t ofsuchacontract,transaction,orrefusal,shallbevalid,irrevocable,  ` andenforceable,saveuponsuchgroundsasexistatlaworinequity  L  fortherevocationofanycontract. 8 ` x` x   Section2oftheFAAisacongressionaldeclarationofaliberalfederalpolicyfavoring   arbitrationagreements.... MosesH.ConeMemlHosp.v.MercuryConstr.Corp., 460U.S.1,24,   103S.Ct.927,941,74L.Ed.2d765(1983).ThebasicpurposeoftheFAAistoensureenforcement   ofarbitrationagreementsaccordingtotheirterms. FrizzellConstr.Co.,v.Gatlinburg,L.L.C. ,9   S.W.3d79,84(Tenn.1999).Furthermore, p   8 ` asamatteroffederallaw,anydoubtsconcerningthescopeof H arbitrableissuesshouldberesolvedinfavorofarbitration....Tothat 4 end,theheavypresumptionofarbitrabilityrequiresthatwhenthe  p scopeofthearbitrationclauseisopentoquestion,acourtmustdecide  \ thequestioninfavorofarbitration. H` x` x AmericanRecoveryCorp.v.ComputerizedThermalImaging,Inc. ,96F.3d88,92(4thCir.1996)  (citationsandquotationmarksomitted).    @ll)IV.    TheissuewemustdecideonthisappealiswhetherPortersTCPAandTILAclaimsare h subjecttothearbitrationprovisionintheagreement.Thecourtbelowfoundthatthoseclaimsdonot T  relatetotheagreement,and,therefore,Porterisnotrequiredtoarbitratethem.  @!    MoneyTreecontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitrefusedtocompelPortertoarbitrate #h! herclaimsbecause,itargues,thatbothofPortersclaimsariseoutoftheagreement.MoneyTree $T" arguesthatPortersTCPAclaimisbaseduponherallegationthatMoneyTreeviolatedT.C.A.45 $@ # 15115(2)byattemptingtocollectadeficiencyfollowingthesaleofherautomobile.Becauseits %,!$ abilitytocollectthedeficiencyisfoundinparagraphsixoftheagreement,MoneyTreemaintains &"% thatPortersTCPAclaimisnecessarilybaseduponthelanguageoftheagreement.Furthermore, '#& MoneyTreearguesthatPortersTILAclaimalsoarisesoutoftheagreementbecauseshecontends (#' thattheagreementfailstodisclosetheadditionalfinancingchargesassociatedwithrenewalperiods )$( providedforintheagreement. x*%)  d+&*   PorterarguesthatherTCPAandTILAclaimsdonotariseoutoftheagreement,andare,  therefore,notsubjecttoarbitration.See Souderv.HealthPartners,Inc. ,997S.W.2d140,144  (Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(holdingthatmattersoutsidethescopeofthecontractarenotsubjecttothe  arbitrationprovision).InsupportofherargumentthatherTCPAclaimisnotsubjecttoarbitration, t PorterreliesuponthisCourtsdecisionin Brownv.KareMorIntl,Inc. ,C/ANo.01A019807CH ` 00368,1999WL221799(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filedApril19,1999),perm.app.grantedJanuary L  18,2000,inwhichthisCourtdeterminedthattheplaintifftheredidnothavetoarbitrateherTCPA 8  claimbecauseitdidnotrelatetotheagreement. Id. at*2.In KareMor ,theplaintiffandthe $ t defendantenteredintoadistributorshipagreementcontaininganarbitrationclausewhichprovided  ` that [a]nycontroversy,dispute,orclaimrelatingtothisagreementbetweenthepartiesshallbe  L  resolvedbybindingarbitrationinCarsonCity,Nevada.... Id. #zXXX&#XX&XzThereafter,thedefendantmade  8  promisestotheplaintiffregardingadjustmentstotheproductifshewouldreturnittothecompany. $   Id. at*1.Theplaintiffreturnedtheproduct,butthedefendantfailedtocomplywiththeagreement.    Id. Asaresult,theplaintifffiledsuitallegingfraudintheinducementtoenterintoadistributorship   andunfairanddeceptivepracticesundertheTCPA. Id. Thedefendantarguedthattheplaintiffs   claimshadtobearbitrated. Id. Thetrialcourtconcludedthattheplaintiffsclaimsoffraudinthe   inducementandviolationoftheTCPAdidnotrelatetotheagreement,thereforetheplaintiffwas p notrequiredtoarbitratethoseclaims. Id. at2.PorterreliesuponthiscasetoshowthatallTCPA \ claimsareexemptfromarbitration. H #zXXX&8#XX&Xz  Inthecaseof Pyburnv.BillHeardChevrolet ,C/ANo.M200002322COAR3CV,2001  p WL487569(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filedMay9,2001),perm.app.deniedNovember19,2001  \ (recommendedforpublication),wedistinguished KareMor andrejectedtheargumentthatallTCPA H claimsareexemptfromarbitration. #  4      ׀In Pyburn ,theplaintiffrelieduponthisCourtsdecisionin 4  KareMor tosupporthisargumentthathisTCPAclaimwasnotsubjecttoarbitration.Werejected   theplaintiffsargumentin Pyburn ,notingthatin KareMor ,weheldthattheplaintiffsTCPAclaim   wasnotsubjecttoarbitrationbecauseitwasoutsidethescopeofthearbitrationagreement. Pyburn,   2001WL487569at*10. Inotherwords,thepartieshadnotagreedtoarbitratethatclaim. Id. We  alsoconcludedin Pyburn that KareMor doesnotstandforthepropositionthatnoTCPAclaimcould  bearbitrated. Id. In Pyburn ,wefoundthattheplaintiffsTCPAclaimwas withinthescopeof l whatthepartiesagreedtoarbitrate. Id. Thepartiesagreedtoarbitrate allclaims,demands, X  disputes,orcontroversiesofeverykindornaturethatmayarisebetweenthemconcerninganyofthe D! negotiationsleadingtothesale,leaseorfinancingofthevehicle,termsandprovisionsofthesale, 0"  leaseorfinancingagreement,arrangementsforfinancing.... Id. Wefoundthattheplaintiffs #l! claims allcenteraroundthefinancingagreementanditstermsand,therefore,whentheplaintiff $X" enteredintotheagreementwiththedefendant,heagreedtoarbitratehisTCPAclaim. Id.  $D #   %0!$   Similarly,intheinstantcase,wefindthatPortersTCPAandTILAclaimscenteraroundthe   titlepledgeagreementanditsterms,and,asaresult,theyfallwithinthedisputesthatsheagreedto  arbitrate.#zXXX&#=#XX&XzPorterscauseofactionundertheTCPAisbaseduponherallegationthattheprovision  intheagreementwhichrecitesthat [i]fadeficiencyisfoundafterthesaleoftheautomobile, t PledgorwillpayLenderthedifferenceofthesalespriceandtheamountowedasofthefirstlegal ` saledate,isprohibitedbyT.C.A.4515115(2).PorterarguesthatMoneyTreesinclusionofthe L   illegalprovisionintheagreementisadeceptiveactinviolationoftheTCPA.SeeT.C.A.47 8  18104(12),(27).Clearly,becausePortersclaimisbaseduponan illegalprovisioninthe $ t agreement,itisadisputearisingoutoftheagreement,andthusfallssquarelywithinthearbitration  ` provision.  L  #zXXX&8G#XX&Xz  Furthermore,wefindthatPortersTILAclaimalsoarisesoutoftheagreement.Porterclaims $  thatMoneyTreeviolatedT.C.A.4515113(a)byfailingtoincludeintheagreementastatement   indicatingthetermsandadditionalfinancingchargesrelatedtotherenewalperiods.Portercontends   thatanyattemptbyMoneyTreetoassesschargesagainstherinexcessoftheoriginalfinance   chargesagreedtointheinitial30daycontract,evidencesMoneyTreesfailuretodiscloseadditional   financingcharges.Asaresult,Porterarguesthatthesechargesaredisguisedfinancechargesunder p theTILA,andMoneyTreeisliabletoPorterforviolationoftheTILA.Theseallegationsarebased \ uponanallegeddeficiencyintheagreement;hence,they aris[e]outoftheagreementandare H subjecttoarbitration. 4   BecausewefindthatPortersTCPAandTILAclaimsariseoutofthetitlepledgeagreement  \ andthereforefallwithinthelanguageofthearbitrationprovision,weholdthatthetrialcourterred H infailingtoorderthepartiestoarbitration. 4 #zXXX&K#XX&Xz  ThetrialcourtfoundthatPorterallegedthreecausesofaction!violationoftheTCPA,   violationoftheTILA,andaclaimforpunitivedamagesasaresultoffraudandmisrepresentation.  ThecourtstatedthatPortersfraudandmisrepresentationclaimsaretortclaimsnotdependentupon  theagreement,andlikeherotherclaims,arenotsubjecttoarbitration.MoneyTreearguesthat  Porterdidnotsetforthspecificfactualallegationsinsupportofherclaimsoffraudand l misrepresentation.Weagree.Inhercomplaint,Portersimplysoughtpunitivedamagesasaresult X  ofMoneyTreesfraudandmisrepresentationallegedlyinvolvedinviolationsoftheTCPAandTILA; D! however,Porterdidnotallegeseparatecausesofactionforfraudandmisrepresentation.We 0"  concludethatPortersfraudandmisrepresentationgeneralallegationsrelatetoherTCPAandTILA #l! claimsandareapartofthatwhichissubjecttothearbitrationprocess. $X"   Inanattempttoavoidarbitrationbyhavingtheentirecontractsetasidepursuanttothe %0!$ languageoftheFAAdealingwith revocationof[the]contract,Porteralleges,forthefirsttime, &"% onappealthattheentireagreementshouldberevokedbecauseitisanunenforceableadhesion '#& contract.Assuch,shearguesthatbecausethearbitrationprovisionispartofthe unenforceable (#' agreement,theagreementtoarbitrateisalsoinvalid.BecausePorterhasnotallegedfactsinher )$( complainttosupportrevocationofthecontract,norhasshesoughttheremedyofrescissioninher |*%) complaint,wewillnotnoticethisissueonappeal.See Irvinv.Binkley ,577S.W.2d677,679(Tenn. h+&* Ct.App.1978)( ThisCourtcanonlyconsidersuchmattersaswerebroughttotheattentionofthe  trialcourtandacteduponor[pretermitted]bythetrialcourt.).    Porterarguesbeforeus!againforthefirsttime!thatthismattershouldnotbearbitrated t becauseofthepotentiallyexcessivefeesassociatedwitharbitrationandtheburdensometimeand ` expenseoftravelingtoDavidsonCountytoarbitrate.Porterarguesthatweshouldfindthe L  arbitrationprovisionisunconscionablebecauseoftheexcessivefeesandinconvenientforum. 8  Again,becausethisissueisraisedforthefirsttimeonthisappeal,wewillnotaddressit. $ t     ` @)V.  L    WeholdthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtorequirearbitrationofPortersclaims. $  Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed.Costsonappealareassessedtotheappellee,   JoyMcVeyPorter.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfortheentryofanordersubmittingthis   mattertoarbitrationandsuspendingfurthercourtactionpendingreceiptofthearbitratorsdecision.      `     h     _______________________________ \    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE#zXXX&P# H