ÿWPC­% jZ°ê”¶ôæµe¦¥@`xÁZA!§ZÐÚù£çñ‚Ä_Ç7-]É)ˆùT„~`º‘ØØNÊP𒮞Æ)6‡ÝYðA“Å/uh`Ö»Yf:R îU¼´ZóV®n¹!66ÖÂæ0Cd~·|6a,ºðº÷C„ÕÃê‡_W3 ‚áÊör5÷_Ó\­–¸È­âë6'ñ÷’$ ÛðRP1~U#!cFg‰Ú©È´¨¡œwÑfu5®Úý$¥ÙZù ©7ŠŸý²›L‰;ØÄ'óÄ"IN…éo„˳@ahOÂÖ¹o”cz®L—,[Œ¤ðŽÒ%wr|H¼VÇ"è%µØTã¯{ßHGö}¦êÛåIšÍ…×µ÷Ï_;mƒÇÖ®i7XŠ#¥ÒŸþê‰F2SUcMš©Nn©l|¡¿¬c¿ˆÀ ø¸ÜçfñÏ[ûîV-  0–R¢õbŒm:É…¼®qÜ02 _‘8úØDX’÷¥#'&]Ù·ñö ÎoE‚/„T—]öe‚î[‚@П*+»p¢Šé2³wÄâ·_ï Š;pRÇX9fÞƒÖáÜ~¯•KÅ´=ñ=ó )B £.Û"~ß,6·KæážÎMÇáþ+ =ltt²é>=Fþôúb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UON· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0 D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;Ð= EjU NtÏ!CñdUNU÷£àššššššðzzzzzzzz6jjb                                                                        0 ë¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ B“!“! 0¤°! D5T" D-‰" 0K¶"¶" AS#ÆT# 0¤$ 0D¾$ A«%˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»µs+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-C +ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ÆÝ ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôøM òXXÔFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€was€amended€in€1993;€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€was€amended€in€1995.€€The€AdvisoryÐ ° ÐCommission€Comments€to€the€1995€changes€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€note€that€the€amended€rule€ð ðtracks€the€current€federalÐ tÄ ÐÔ_Ôrule.ððÔ_Ô  `Ý ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôøM òXXÔHugo€Ô_ÔSandovalÔ_Ô,€the€remaining€defendant€in€the€underlying€action,€was€not€available€to€sign€the€petition.€€HeÐ ° Ðdid€sign€the€letter€to€the€editor.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular jÝ ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôøM òXXÔAppellate€counsel,€Mr.€Gonzalez,€as€well€as€trial€counsel,€Mr.€Hill,€represented€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€at€the€post„judgmentÐ ° Ðhearing€on€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend. Ý ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôøM òXXÔThus,€Plaintiffs€did€lay€the€evidentiary€predicate€for€a€defense€of€subjective€good€Ô_Ôfaith.Ô_Ô çÝ ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôøM òXXÔFor€example,€in€òòDevine€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€52€F.€Supp.2d€741,€746€(S.D.€Miss.€1999),€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðimposed€sanctions€only€on€the€plaintiff€upon€learning€that€the€factual€allegations€in€the€complaint€were€false,€and€thatÐ tÄ Ðplaintiff€had€encouraged€the€ð ðwitnessðð€to€lie€under€oath.€€Sanctions€were€not€imposed€upon€the€attorney€because€theÐ 8ˆ Ðplaintiffððs€affidavit€and€counselððs€motion€to€withdraw€indicated€that€the€attorney€did€not€know€that€the€testimony€wasÐ üL Ðfalse.€€òòIdóó.€at€745.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular íÝ ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôøM òXXÔAccording€to€the€transcript€from€the€second€hearing€before€the€Zoning€Board,€the€rules€and€regulationsÐ ° Ðgoverning€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€require€a€Health€Department€approval€letter€before€applicationsÐ tÄ Ðfor€change€of€use€can€properly€be€granted.Ô#†XX òôøM~#Ô ÖÝ ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôøM òXXÔThe€Plaintiffs€did€not€originally€sue€the€newspaper€which€printed€the€letter.€€The€Defendants€filed€a€motionÐ ° Ðto€require€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€to€add€the€newspaper€and€members€of€the€Christian€Coalition€who€had€signed€the€guest€column.€TheÐ tÄ ÐPlaintiffs€later€sought€to€add€the€newspaper€as€a€defendant€by€amendment,€but€did€not€seek€to€add€the€members€of€theÐ 8ˆ ÐChristian€Coalition.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€any€action€by€the€trial€court€on€either€motion.Ô#†XX òôøM~#Ô æÝ ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôøM òXXÔThe€Advisory€Committee€Notes€to€the€1993€Amendments€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€list€a€number€of€factorsÐ ° Ðappropriate€for€a€court€to€consider€in€deciding€whether€to€impose€a€sanction,€including€whether€the€responsible€party€isÐ tÄ Ðlaw„trained.€€The€Notes€are€quoted€extensively€later€in€this€opinion. ,Ý ƒRË$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôøM òXXÔWe€do€not€suggest€that€Plaintiffððs€absence€from€the€hearing€was€strategic.Ô‡ôøM ò òôøMÔÔ#†ôøM ò òôøMê#Ô- ù-(|G2Ë$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E]»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX»»Ô d(|3IV$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E]»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IV$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E]»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E]»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼E]»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îGÜE]ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼E]»îîGÜô#ԈРÖ& Ðà@¶¶ìàApril€12,€2000€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼E]ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E]»XXâ#ÔÓ  ÓPROJECT€CREATION,€INC.,€òòet€al.óó€v.€KENNETH€NEAL,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XX»¼E]Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÓ(ÓÌà@š š ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Wilson€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@ô ô ìàNo.€10352€€€€€€John€O.€Wootton,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@Ç Ç ìàNo.€M1999„01272„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€21,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ԈР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÔ‡XXXXÔÔ#†¼E]»XXv#ÔÔ‡XX»¼E]ÔThe€trial€court€dismissed€Plaintiffsðð€libel€action€and€then€granted€Defendantsðð€motion€for€sanctionsÐ xÈ  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02(1)€and€11.02(3),€finding€that€the€libel€action€was€filed€for€anÐ d´ Ðimproper€purpose€and€without€factual€support.€€The€court€awarded€Defendants€$9,262.90€in€expensesÐ P  Ðand€attorney€fees.€We€affirm€in€part€and€vacate€in€part.Ð <Œ ÐÔ#†XXXXÊ#ÔÔ#†¼E]»XX #ÔÔ‡XX»¼E]ÔÌò òà@SSìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtˆÐ d Ðà@± ± ìàAffirmed€in€Part,€Vacated€in€Part€and€Remandedó óˆÐ P ÐÌòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,Ô#†¼E]»àX*#ÔÔ‡XX.¼E]Ôóó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÐ Ø( Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJerry€Gonzalez,€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants€Project€Creation,€Inc.€and€Sean€Meek.Ð œì ÐÌWilliam€E.€Farmer,€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Kenneth€Neal,€Judy€Pratt,€PamelaÐ tÄ ÐSandoval,€Brenda€Williams,€W.G.€Neal,€Jack€Pratt,€Jr.,€Hugo€Sandoval,€and€Albert€Williams,€Jr.Ð `° ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E]»XXN#ÔÔ‡XX»¼E]ԈР8!ˆ  Ðà@ìì*ìàÔ#†¼E]»XX± #ÔÔ€XX»¼E]ÔˆÌà  àPlaintiffs,€Sean€Meek€and€Project€Creation,€filed€a€libel€action€against€Defendants,€KennethÐ #`" ÐNeal,€Judy€Pratt,€Pamela€Sandoval,€Brenda€Williams,€W.G.€Neal,€Jack€Pratt,€Jr.,€Hugo€Sandoval,€andÐ ü#L# ÐAlbert€Williams,€Jr.,Ô‡XXXXÔ€who€wrote€a€letter€to€the€editor€of€a€local€newspaper€opposing€PlaintiffsððÐ è$8 $ Ðproposed€use€of€land€which€was€near€theirs.€€After€dismissing€the€libel€action,€the€trial€court€grantedÐ Ô%$!% ÐDefendantsðð€motion€for€sanctions€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02(1)€and€11.02(3),€finding€thatÐ À&"& Ðthe€libel€action€was€filed€for€an€improper€purpose€and€lacked€a€factual€basis.€€The€court€awardedÐ ¬'ü"' ÐDefendants€$9,262.90€in€expenses€and€attorney€fees.€€The€merits€of€the€dismissal€are€not€appealed;Ð ˜(è#( Ðthe€assessment€of€sanctions€is.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌÐ  \+¬&+ý ÐÓ  ÓI.€€BackgroundÐ ° ÐÓ÷ÓÓ  ÓÌÓ6ÓÔ#†XXXXE #Ôà  àSean€Meek€formed€Project€Creation,€Inc.,€a€non„profit€corporation,€in€1993.€€He€intendedÐ ˆØ ÐProject€Creation€to€be€a€teaching€ministry€devoted€to€ð ðcreation€science.ðð€It€was€funded€entirely€byÐ tÄ Ðdonations,€the€largest€of€which€was€$610.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àMr.€Meek,€through€Project€Creation,€planned€to€build€a€facility€to€promote€creation€science.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHe€spoke€with€local€Christian€Coalition€members€and€obtained€their€assistance€in€locating€19.07Ð $ t Ðacres€in€Wilson€County€on€which€to€build.€€Before€he€actually€purchased€the€property,€Mr.€MeekÐ  ` Ðfiled€a€zoning€application€with€the€Wilson€County€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals,€seeking€to€have€theÐ ü L  Ðland€Ô_ÔrezonedÔ_Ô€or€his€proposed€use€approved€to€accommodate€his€plans.€€The€application€was€filed€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€name€of€the€owner€of€the€property,€Frances€Pratt,€and€described€the€project€as€a€ð ðnature€centerÐ Ô$  Ðand€museum.ðð€While€the€application€was€pending,€Mr.€Meek€mentioned€to€local€members€of€theÐ À  ÐChristian€Coalition€his€desire€to€keep€a€ð ðlow€profileðð€as€to€the€philosophical€aspects€of€the€museum,Ð ¬ü  Ðfearing€opposition€from€ð ðoutside€groups,€evolutionists,€and€such,€who€would€have€tried€to€block€theÐ ˜è  Ðmuseum.ðð€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€early€October€1997,€the€County€Building€Inspector€sent€a€letter€describing€the€proposedÐ \¬ Ðð ðnature€center€and€museumðð€to€residents€of€the€surrounding€area,€notifying€them€that€the€Board€ofÐ H˜ ÐZoning€Appeals€would€hear€the€application€on€October€24.€€The€letter€was€based€on€information€Mr.Ð 4„ ÐMeek€had€provided.Ð  p ÐÌà  àAt€the€October€24€hearing€on€the€application,€several€local€residents€appeared€and€expressedÐ øH Ðtheir€opposition€to€the€project.€€They€asked€the€Board€to€defer€ruling€on€the€application€until€moreÐ ä4 Ðinformation€about€the€proposed€use€was€available.€€Mr.€Meek€responded€by€stating€that€he€plannedÐ Ð  Ðto€build€a€museum€similar€to€the€Cumberland€Science€Museum€in€Nashville,€which€would€receiveÐ ¼  Ðbetween€two€and€three€hundred€visitors€per€day€and€would€employ€four€or€five€workers.€The€BoardÐ ¨ø Ðgranted€the€use€on€October€24,€1997.€€Mr.€Meek€completed€the€€purchase€of€the€property€shortlyÐ ”ä Ðthereafter.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOn€October€28,€1997,€Zander€Raines,€the€head€of€the€local€branch€of€the€Christian€Coalition,Ð X ¨ Ðwrote€about€the€zoning€approval€in€that€groupððs€newsletter.€€In€the€article€he€offered€to€arrange€forÐ D!” ÐMr.€Meek€to€speak€to€local€churches.€€A€flyer€about€the€museum,€entitled€ð ðArk€Museum€andÐ 0"€  ÐDinosaur€Park,ðð€was€attached€to€the€newsletter.€€It€stated:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€The€Dinosaur€Park€will€include€a€variety€of€sizes€and€species€of€dinosaurs€andÐ ô$D # Ðwill€tell€how€dinosaurs€fit€into€the€true€Biblical€history€of€the€world.€€The€ArkÐ à%0!$ ÐMuseum€and€Dinosaur€Park€will€not€only€be€a€national€resource€center€for€churches,Ð Ì&"% Ðit€will€also€be€an€evangelical€outreach€to€those€who€might€never€go€inside€a€church,Ð ¸'#& Ðbut€may€be€open€to€hearing€the€Gospel€message€in€a€different€format.€€With€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐMuseum€located€on€Interstate€40,€only€25€miles€from€Nashville,€Tennessee€and€withÐ )à$( Ðmillions€of€people€passing€by€it€annually,€the€Museum€will€have€an€outreachÐ |*Ì%) Ðunparalleled€in€America€today.€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àOn€December€16,€1997,€Brenda€Williams,€Albert€Williams,€Judy€P.€Pratt,€Jack€F.€Pratt,€PamÐ ° ÐSandoval,€W.G.€Neal€and€Kenneth€Neal׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€filed€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€òòcertiorarióó€in€the€ChanceryÐ œì ÐCourt€of€Wilson€County€challenging€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appealsðð€approval€of€the€application.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðpetition€asserted€that€the€Boardððs€decision€deprived€them€of€due€process€by€infringing€on€their€rightÐ tÄ Ðto€receive€correct€and€complete€information,€threatened€the€safety€and€welfare€of€the€citizens€in€theirÐ `° Ðarea,€and€violated€state€and€county€zoning€law.€€It€stated€that€the€predicted€increase€in€traffic€was€ofÐ L œ Ðconcern€and€claimed€that€deception€by€Mr.€Meek€and€others€produced€a€ruling€based€on€fraud.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€December€19,€the€òòLebanon€Democratóó,€the€local€newspaper,€ran€a€front€page€story€on€theÐ  ` ÐChancery€Court€lawsuit.€€The€headline€read,€ð ðSuit:€Christian€Coalition€Misled€a€Zoning€Request.ððÐ ü L  ÐThe€article€reported€the€allegations€in€the€petition.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€December€30,€1997,€members€of€the€local€Christian€Coalition€responded€with€a€ð ðGuestÐ À  ÐColumn.ðð€€The€headline€read,€ð ðChristian€Coalition€Blasts€ððFalseðð€Story.ðð€The€column€stated€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðnewspaper€had€published€certain€falsehoods€including€statements€that:€(1)€€a€member€of€the€ChristianÐ ˜è  ÐCoalition€had€appeared€before€the€Zoning€Board€and€purposefully€misled€that€group,€when,€in€fact,€Ð „Ô  Ðno€member€had€appeared;€and€(2)€Sean€Meek€failed€to€disclose€that€the€project€was€a€religiousÐ pÀ Ðoperation€proposed€and€sponsored€by€the€Tennessee€Christian€Coalition€when,€in€fact,€the€CoalitionÐ \¬ Ðwas€not€sponsoring€the€project.€€However,€the€column€stated,€ð ðWe€do€not€sponsor€Project€Creation,Ð H˜ Ðalthough€we€do€support€this€effort,€as€we€have€supported€and€will€continue€to€support€any€efforts€byÐ 4„ ÐChristians€to€help€turn€our€communities€back€to€God.ðð€€Mr.€Meek€also€wrote€a€letter€to€the€editor,Ð  p Ðwhich€appeared€the€same€day.€€His€letter€stated,€ð ðProject€Creation€is€not€affiliated€with€the€ChristianÐ  \ ÐCoalition€or€any€other€organization.ððÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€Defendants€herein,€who€all€live€near€the€property€where€the€proposed€development€wasÐ Ð  Ðto€be€located,€and€who€were€Plaintiffs€in€the€chancery€court€action€challenging€the€zoning€decision,Ð ¼  Ðwrote€a€letter€to€the€editor€responding€to€the€above„mentioned€letters.€This€letter,€which€wasÐ ¨ø Ðpublished€January€8,€was€the€basis€for€the€underlying€lawsuit.€€The€letter€detailed€Ô_ÔDefendantsððÔ_ÔÐ ”ä Ðobjections€to€the€proposed€use€of€the€property,€including€the€unsuitability€of€the€roads€to€handle€theÐ €Ð Ðexpected€traffic.€€Although€Plaintiffs€herein€objected€primarily€to€those€portions€of€the€letter€Ð l¼ Ðdescribing€their€objections€to€€ð ðdeceptionðð€on€the€part€of€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€and€describing€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsððÔ_ÔÐ X ¨ Ðinterrelationship€with€the€Christian€Coalition,€we€are€setting€out€herein€the€full€text€of€the€letter.€€It€Ð D!” Ðstated:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€not€our€intention€to€enter€into€a€public€discussion€about€a€matter€that€already€isÐ $X" Ðin€the€courts.€€However,€we€feel€that€two€letters€you€published€in€the€editorial€pageÐ ô$D # Ðof€Tuesday,€Dec.€30,€1997€deserve€some€response€from€us.€€One€of€the€letters€is€fromÐ à%0!$ Ðseveral€members€of€the€Christian€Coalition€and€the€other€is€from€Sean€Meek,€directorÐ Ì&"% Ðof€Project€Creation.€€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà8  àBoth€concern€a€suit€we€have€brought€to€force€reconsideration€of€the€suitability€of€theÐ ° Ðlocation€and€manner€in€which€a€zoning€variance€for€a€ð ðNature€Museum€and€hikingÐ œì Ðtrailððwas€obtained.€This€project€is€proposed€by€Sean€Meek,€as€director€of€ProjectÐ ˆØ ÐCreation.€€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThis€museum€was€first€described€to€area€property€owners€in€a€letter€dated€Oct.€7,Ð L œ Ð1997€by€Kathy€Dedman,€county€building€inspector.€€This€letter,€based€uponÐ 8 ˆ Ðinformation€supplied€by€Sean€Meek,€was€sent€to€all€the€surrounding€property€ownersÐ $ t Ðalerting€them€to€the€Wilson€Count€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€(ð ðBOZAðð)€meeting€thatÐ  ` Ðwas€held€on€Friday,€Oct.€24,€1997.€€In€that€letter€it€says€ð ðFrances€Pratt€had€madeÐ ü L  Ðapplication€on€appeal€seeking€to€establish€a€òònature€center€and€museumóó.ðð€(EmphasisÐ è 8  Ðours).€The€letter€then€describes€the€location€of€the€property,€its€size€and€mentions€thatÐ Ô$  Ðit€is€zoned€ð ðA„1€Agriculture.ððÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àWe€contend€that€what€we€have€called€deception€begins€with€this€letter.€€NowhereÐ ˜è  Ðdoes€the€notice€mention€that€Sean€Meek,€Project€Creation,€and/or€the€ChristianÐ „Ô  ÐCoalition€are€behind€this€museum€and€its€intended€use€as€later€described€in€ChristianÐ pÀ ÐCoalition€literature.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIn€their€letter€to€the€newspaper,€the€Christian€Coalition€says:€ððFalsehood:€A€ChristianÐ 4„ ÐCoalition€newsletter€later€disclosed€for€the€first€time€that€the€project€was€beingÐ  p Ðsponsored€by€the€Tennessee€Christian€Coalition.ðð€€To€refute€this€statement€we€offerÐ  \ Ðthe€following€sequence€of€events€and€direct€quotes,€and€invite€the€readers€to€formÐ øH Ðtheir€own€conclusion:Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAt€the€BOZA€meeting,€Sean€Meek,€identifying€himself€as€director€of€ProjectÐ ¼  ÐCreation,€spoke€of€a€nature€center€and€museum.€€The€BOZA€minutes€of€the€Oct.€24Ð ¨ø Ðmeeting€read:€ð ðSean€Meek€stated€that€the€use€would€be€a€history,€science,€and€natureÐ ”ä Ðcenter€for€family€and€school€use.€€There€will€be€science€activities,€outside€activities,Ð €Ð Ðand€the€use€would€have€four€to€five€employees.€€There€would€be€self„guided€tours€onÐ l¼ Ðthe€site.€€The€use€would€be€a€not„for„profit€organization,€but€a€fee€would€be€chargedÐ X ¨ Ðfor€the€facility.€€He€was€planning€a€50€foot€buffer€for€the€use.€€There€would€be€twoÐ D!” Ðbuildings€located€on€the€site,€a€75€foot€by€75€foot€building€and€a€building€150€feetÐ 0"€  Ðlong.€.€.€.€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àShortly€after€the€zoning€was€approved,€the€Christian€Coalition€newsletter,€on€CCÐ ô$D # Ðletterhead,€dated€Oct.€28,€1997€and€signed€by€Zander€Raines,€president€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐChristian€Coalition€says:€As€some€of€you€already€know,€on€Friday,€Oct.€24,€there€wasÐ Ì&"% Ða€zoning€meeting€in€the€Wilson€County€courthouse€that€cleared€the€way€for€ProjectÐ ¸'#& ÐCreation€to€build€a€museum€just€off€the€Linwood€Road€Exit€of€I„40..ðð€€Mr.€RainesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontinues:€ð ðThe€papers€have€already€been€signed€and€the€work€will€be€startingÐ )à$( Ðsometime€next€spring.€€In€the€meantime,€Sean€Meek,€director€of€Project€Creation,Ð |*Ì%) Ðwill€be€available€for€speaking€engagements€in€local€churches€until€the€end€of€thisÐ h+¸&* Ðyear.€€If€you€would€like€Sean€Meek€at€your€church,€òòjust€call€meóó€(emphasis€ours)€andÐ ° Ðwe€will€work€out€the€details.ððМìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àWe€ask,€if€the€Christian€Coalition€and€Project€Creation€are€not€intertwined,€why€isÐ tÄ ÐMr.€Raines€arranging€Mr.€Meekððs€speaking€engagements?Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIn€addition,€Mr.€Meek,€in€a€telephone€conversation€with€a€plaintiff,€Albert€Williams,Ð 8 ˆ Ðled€him€to€believe€that€the€Coalition€supports€Project€Creation.€€Further€more,€theÐ $ t ÐCoalitionððs€letter€to€the€paper€misquotes€Mr.€Williams€as€saying€that€ð ðhe€supportedÐ  ` Ðthe€creation€science€museum€concept€as€he€felt€any€person€should.ðð€€In€reality,€Mr.Ð ü L  ÐWilliams€has€never€supported€the€museum€proposal€under€any€of€its€forms.€€As€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐWilliams€learned€more€about€the€details€of€the€project,€his€opposition€to€it€becameÐ Ô$  Ðstronger.€.€.€.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àEveryone€who€knows€the€Trousdale€Ferry€Pike€location€under€consideration€knowsÐ ˜è  Ðthat€this€is€primarily€a€narrow€and€winding€country€road.€€It€has€no€shoulders,€noÐ „Ô  Ðturning€lane,€and€close€to€the€proposed€museum€location€there€are€two€narrow,€no„Ð pÀ Ðpassing€culvert€bridges.€€Only€1.2€miles€from€where€the€narrow€entrance€to€theÐ \¬ Ðmuseum€would€be,€there€is€Tuckers€Crossroad€Elementary€School.€€Obviously,€weÐ H˜ Ðare€concerned€about€the€safety€of€the€children€as€we€are€about€the€safety€of€farmersÐ 4„ Ðwho€traffic€frequently€on€slow„moving€equipment.€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àOurs€is€an€honest,€rural€Christian€community.€€We€believe€that€in€Tuckers€Crossroads€Ð øH ÐElementary€School€we€have€the€best€all„around€public€school€in€the€county.€€OurÐ ä4 Ðneighbors€are€good,€moral,€rural€people€who€attend€good€Christian€churches€in€whichÐ Ð  Ðmany€are€elders€and€deacons.€€We€have€people€living€in€Tuckers€Crossroads€who€areÐ ¼  Ðthe€fifth€generation€of€their€families€to€live€in€this€community.€€We€would€like€toÐ ¨ø Ðpreserve€all€these€qualities€in€our€community€for€our€children.€Ð”äÐ Ð  ÐÔ‡XXXXÔÌà8  àWe€know€that€many€organizations€that€begin€as€Christian€and€with€good€intentionsÐ l¼ Ðend€at€times€causing€communities€and€even€our€nation€problems€when€their€tacticsÐ X ¨ Ðchange,€becoming€more€like€cults.€We€are€concerned€that€the€needs€and€character€ofÐ D!” Ðour€community€have€not€been€considered€in€the€planning€of€this€Ark€Museum€andÐ 0"€  ÐDinosaur€Park€.€€The€citation€letter€to€the€BOZA€presented€the€now„former€owner€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€property€as€petitioning€the€change€for€a€nature€center.€€Then,€Sean€Meek€andÐ $X" ÐProject€Creation€appear€at€the€meeting€as€the€interested€party.€€Later,€the€ChristianÐ ô$D # ÐCoalition,€in€their€newsletters€and€other€literature,€appear€as€managers€of€Mr.€MeekððsÐ à%0!$ Ðspeaking€engagements€and€users€of€the€center€that€is€no€longer€called€a€natureÐ Ì&"% Ðmuseum€but€an€Ark€Museum€and€Dinosaur€Park.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àOur€lawsuit€is€at€this€time€the€only€way€to€force€a€new€hearing€of€the€zoning€permitÐ )à$( Ðwhere€our€communityððs€concerns€and€needs€are€considered.€€We€are€worried€aboutÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€loss€of€peace€and€tranquility,€and€about€the€insecurity€of€increased€traffic€and€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðstrangers€coming€next€to€our€homes.€€Finally,€we€are€also€concerned€that€the€supportÐ ° Ðservices€for€a€facility€with€200„300€people€a€day€do€not€exist€in€our€community.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€way€the€project€has€been€presented€was€deliberately€evasive.€€It€is€our€opinionÐ tÄ Ðthat€these€are€not€tactics€that€Christ€would€approve€of.€€The€Bible€teaches€the€positiveÐ `° Ðvirtues€of€honesty€and€truth€while€warning€against€worldly€means€such€as€dishonestyÐ L œ Ðand€deceit.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€our€hope€that€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€will€conduct€a€future€hearing€andÐ  ` Ðlearning€of€our€concerns,€will€realize€that€this€activity€is€not€proper€for€our€area.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†XXXX¨F#ÔÌà  àShortly€after€the€defendantððs€letter€was€published,€Mr.€Meek€and€Project€Creation,€Inc.€filedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€underlying€action.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€The€complaint,€signed€only€by€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsððÔ_Ô€counsel,€alleged€that€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_ÔÐ À  Ðhad€filed€suit€to€enjoin€the€building€of€the€nature€center€and€science€museum€and,€in€pertinent€part,Ð ¬ü  ÐthatÐ ˜è  ÐÌà8  àOn€January€8,€1998,€Defendants€Neal,€Pratt,€Sandoval,€and€Williams€intentionallyÐ pÀ Ðand€maliciously€prepared€and€composed€an€editorial,€published€in€the€òòLebanonÐ \¬ ÐDemocratóó€an€editorial€which€falsely€imputed€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€as€being€aligned,€sponsored,Ð H˜ Ðor€otherwise€connected€with€the€Christian€Coalition.€.€.€In€said€newspaper€article,Ð 4„ ÐDefendants€not€only€align€Plaintiffs€with€the€Christian€Coalition,€but€DefendantsÐ  p Ðpublically€charge€Plaintiffs€with€dishonesty,€deliberate€evasiveness,€and€compareÐ  \ ÐPlaintiffs€to€being,€ð ðmore€like€cults.ðð€ÐøHÐ Ð  ЀÌà  àThe€complaint€claimed€that€these€actions€constituted€libel,€and€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€€sought€$500,000Ð Ð  Ðin€compensatory€damages.Ô‡XXXXÔ€€They€also€alleged€that€ð ðin€falsely€aligning€Plaintiffs€with€the€ChristianÐ ¼  ÐCoalition,€Ô_Ô[Defendants]Ô_Ô€acted€with€malice€or€with€.€.€.€gross€and€reckless€negligence,ðð€and€sought€anÐ ¨ø Ðadditional€$500,000€in€punitive€damages.Ô#†XXXX0U#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àOn€February€9,€1998€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€òòóóresponded€by€sending€Mr.€Meek,€Project€Creation,€and€theirÐ l¼ Ðcounsel€a€proposed€motion€for€sanctions€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€Specifically,€the€proposedÐ X ¨ Ðmotion€asserted€that€the€complaint€ð ðwas€presented€for€an€improper€purpose€ò òó óand€is€without€factualÐ D!” Ðor€legal€basis.ðð€€The€motion€asserted€that€the€libel€lawsuit€was€filed€ð ðin€an€effort€to€harass€andÐ 0"€  Ðintimidate€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€because€of€their€filing€a€cause€of€actionðð€opposing€the€proposed€zoning€of€theÐ #l! Ðland€owned€by€Project€Creation,€Inc.€€The€motion€also€asserted€that€statements€associating€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_ÔÐ $X" Ðwith€the€Christian€Coalition€would€not€be€defamatory,€and€that€members€of€the€Christian€CoalitionÐ ô$D # Ðhad€published€correspondence€supporting€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsððÔ_Ô€project,€but€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€had€not€sued€thoseÐ à%0!$ Ðpersons€for€defamation.€€The€motion€also€alleged€that€the€allegations€in€the€complaint€were€withoutÐ Ì&"% Ðfactual€or€legal€basis€because€the€letter€to€the€editor€was€protected€speech€under€the€FirstÐ ° ÐAmendment.€€The€Plaintiffs€did€not€withdraw€the€complaint.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€Defendants€later€filed€the€Rule€11€motion€they€had€sent€to€Plaintiffs,€stating€they€hadÐ tÄ Ðgiven€Plaintiffs€more€than€twenty„one€days€notice€and€Plaintiffs€had€refused€to€withdraw€or€amendÐ `° Ðtheir€complaint.€€Defendants€asked€that€the€complaint€be€declared€frivolous€and€contrary€to€Rule€11Ð L œ Ðand€that€sanctions€be€assessed€against€Mr.€Meek,€Project€Creation,€Inc.,€and€their€attorney,€Mr.€Hill.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐDefendants€attached€the€Notice€of€Filing€Rule€11€Motion€along€with€a€copy€of€a€February€9€letterÐ $ t Ðwhich€had€been€sent€to€Plaintiffs€along€with€the€proposed€motion.Ô#†XXXXšV#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€Defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€lawsuit€on€March€16,€1998,€arguing€that€theÐ è 8  Ðcomplaint€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€The€trial€court€heard€argumentÐ Ô$  Ðon€Ô_ÔDefendantsððÔ_Ô€motion€to€dismiss€and€entered€an€order€finding€that€as€to€the€allegation€ð ðrelative€toÐ À  Ðthe€Christian€Coalition€and€the€Plaintiffððs€connection€to€the€Christian€Coalition€is€not€the€basis€forÐ ¬ü  Ða€suit€in€libel€and€is,€therefore,€€dismissed.ðð€The€court€held€the€remaining€portions€of€the€complaintÐ ˜è  Ðand€arguments€on€the€motion€to€dismiss€in€abeyance€ð ðuntil€such€time€as€the€Board€of€Zoning€AppealsÐ „Ô  Ðconducts€its€next€hearing€relative€to€the€Project€Creation€project.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€again€addressed€the€zoning€issue,€on€remand€from€the€chanceryÐ H˜ Ðcourt,€on€June€12,€1998.€€The€Defendantsðð€counsel€participated,€cross€examining€Mr.€Meek€andÐ 4„ Ðinforming€the€Board€that€the€County€Health€Department€had€disapproved€the€site€for€the€proposedÐ  p Ðuse,€a€fact€which€precluded€approval€of€the€use.Ô#†XXXX7_#Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô‡XXXXÔ€€€The€Board€then€unanimously€denied€the€zoningÐ  \ Ðapplication.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€February€of€1999,€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€renewed€their€motions€to€dismiss€and€for€summary€judgmentÐ Ð  Ðin€the€libel€case.€€They€filed€Mr.€Meekððs€deposition€and€the€transcript€of€the€Board€of€ZoningÐ ¼  ÐAppeals€proceeding€as€support€for€their€motion.€€The€court€heard€argument€on€April€12,€1999.€€OnÐ ¨ø ÐApril€19,€the€trial€court€granted€the€motions,€dismissed€the€complaint,€and€taxed€costs€againstÐ ”ä ÐÔ_ÔPlaintiffs.Ô_Ô€€No€appeal€was€taken€from€the€dismissal,€and€the€merits€of€the€dismissal€are€not€involvedÐ €Ð Ðin€this€appeal.€òòóóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendants€then€filed€a€motion€to€alter€and€amend€the€April€order€seeking€a€judgmentÐ D!” Ðof€$9,262.90€in€attorneyððs€feesÔ#†XXXXÚd#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€and€litigation€costs€ð ðagainst€Ô_ÔPlaintiffs,Ô_Ô€Project€Creation,€Inc.€and/orÐ 0"€  ÐSean€Meek,ððÔ#†XXXXÜh#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€pursuant€to€their€earlier€Rule€11€motion.€Ô#†XXXX¬i#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€In€support€of€the€motion,€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€filedÐ #l! Ðthe€affidavit€of€Judy€Pratt,€who€attested€to€the€amount€of€attorneyððs€fees.€The€motion€notifiedÐ $X" ÐÔ_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€that€ð ðThe€foregoing€Motion€is€expected€to€be€heard€.€.€.€at€8:30€a.m.€on€Monday,€May€10,Ð ô$D # Ð1999.ðð€€The€Plaintiffs€responded€to€the€motion€by€asserting€there€was€a€basis€for€the€libel€claims.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€heard€arguments€on€the€motion€for€Rule€11€sanctions.€€The€Plaintiffs€wereÐ ¸'#& Ðrepresented€by€their€original€trial€counsel,€but€were€not€present€at€the€hearing.€€In€its€subsequentlyÐ ° Ðfiled€order,€the€court€reiterated€that€it€found€nothing€libelous€in€the€letter€by€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€publishedÐ œì Ðin€the€òòLebanon€Democratóó€on€January€8.€€The€order€states:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àThe€Court€further€found€that€Project€Creation,€Inc.€and€Sean€Meek€had€filed€thisÐ `° Ðlitigation€to€increase€the€costs€of€the€pending€litigation€concerning€the€ChanceryÐ L œ ÐCourt€dispute€involving€the€zoning€case.€.€.€[and€there€was]€no€factual€or€legal€basisÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€a€lawsuit€against€Ô_ÔDefendants.Ô_Ô€Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€court€awarded€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$9,262.60,€jointly€and€severallyÐ ü L  Ðagainst€Sean€Meek€and€Project€Creation,€Inc.ò ò€€ó óThe€court€declined€to€sanction€their€attorney.€€NoÐ è 8  Ðtranscript€of€the€proceeding€is€in€the€record.€Ô#†XXXXj#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ Ø(  ÐÌà  àAfter€this€ruling,€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment,Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€arguing€that€noÐ °  Ðevidence€supported€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€libel€suit€was€filed€to€harass€and€intimidateÐ œì  ÐÔ_ÔDefendants.Ô_Ô€The€Plaintiffs€also€challenged€the€amount€of€attorneyððs€fees€awarded,€asserting€thatÐ ˆØ  Ðdefense€counselððs€itemized€billing€statement€showed€that€a€number€of€hours€claimed€wereÐ tÄ Ðunnecessary€or€€had€been€expended€on€the€chancery€court€action.€€They€further€argued€that€theÐ `° Ðamount€was€€far€beyond€that€necessary€to€deter€such€conduct€in€the€future.€Finally,€they€asserted€thatÐ Lœ Ðmonetary€sanctions€could€not€be€assessed€against€a€€represented€party€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð 8ˆ Ð11.03(2)€and,€therefore,€any€portion€of€the€sanctions€attributable€to€a€finding€of€no€legal€basis€shouldÐ $t Ðbe€allocated€to€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsððÔ_Ô€counsel.Ð ` ÐÌà  àA€hearing€on€this€motion€was€held€on€July€12,€1999,€and€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€requested€an€evidentiaryÐ è8 Ðhearing.Ô#†XXXXq#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€In€ruling€on€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsððÔ_Ô€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€courtððs€earlierÐ Ô$ Ðruling€on€Rule€11€sanctions€was€based€upon€the€record€as€a€whole€and€that€the€basis€for€the€sanctionsÐ À Ðwere€subsections€(1)€and€(3)€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02.€€The€trial€court€found€that€no€evidentiaryÐ ¬ü Ðhearing€was€warranted€because€Ô_ÔPlaintiffsÔ_Ô€had€notice€of€the€earlier€hearing€and€had€an€opportunity€toÐ ˜è Ðbe€present€and€to€present€evidence.€€The€court€further€found€that€the€litigation€fees€and€costs€involvedÐ „Ô Ðin€the€zoning€lawsuit€and€in€this€libel€action€ð ðwere€interrelated€and€any€attorneys€fees€involved€afterÐ pÀ ÐJanuary€22,€1998€[the€date€the€libel€suit€was€filed]€were€properly€considered€by€the€Court,€subjectÐ \ ¬ Ðto€the€allowance€for€monies€paid€by€Ô_ÔDefendantsÔ_Ô€for€the€retainer€fee.ððÔ#†XXXXÙv#ÔÐ H!˜ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Project€Creation€and€Mr.€Meek€challenge€the€sanctions€on€three€bases:€(1)€thereÐ  #p! Ðwas€insufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€libel€lawsuit€was€filed€for€anÐ  $\" Ðimproper€purpose;€(2)€the€imposition€of€sanctions€was€procedurally€defective,€and€violative€of€dueÐ ø$H # Ðprocess,€because€Plaintiffs€did€not€have€an€opportunity€to€be€heard;€and€(3)€the€amount€of€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðsanctions€was€greater€than€that€necessary€to€deter€and€was€based€on€fees€for€attorney€time€spent€onÐ Ð& "% Ðanother€lawsuit.Ð ¼' #& ÐÐ ¨(ø#' ÐÓ  ÓII.€Rule€11€„€Purpose€and€InterpretationÐ ° ÐÓÉ}ÓÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àRule11€imposes€upon€litigants€and€attorneys€the€obligation€to€avoid€conduct€that€frustratesÐ ˆØ Ðthe€goals€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€1€for€just,€speedy,€and€inexpensive€determination€of€every€action.€Ð tÄ ÐòòMacLean,€Bonnyman€&€Brandt,€Tennessee€Practiceóó€ðð€Ô#†XXXX#~#Ô11:1.€ò òó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€The€purpose€of€Rule€11,€bothÐ `° Ðstate€and€federal,€is€to€curb€abuse€in€the€litigation€process€by€deterring€baseless€filings€which€put€ð ðtheÐ L œ Ðmachinery€of€justice€in€motion,€burdening€courts€and€individuals€alike€with€needless€inconvenience,Ð 8 ˆ Ðexpense,€and€delay.ðð€€€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2d€284,€292€(Tenn.€1991);€òòsee€also€€Dandar€v.Ð $ t ÐAldermanóó,€158€F.3d€516,€528€(11th€Cir.€1998)€(ð ðdeterrence€remains€the€touchstone€of€the€Rule€11Ð  ` Ðinquiryðð).€€Ô#†XXXX#Ôò òó óThis€court€has€recognized€that€the€role€of€Rule€11€is€ð ðto€discourage€the€filing€of€suits€forÐ ü L  Ðððany€improper€purpose,€such€as€to€harass€to€or€cause€unnecessary€delay€or€needless€increase€in€theÐ è 8  Ðcosts€of€litigation.ðð€€òòJustice€v.€Cokeróó,€Nos.€03A01„9606„CV„00191€and€03A01„9606„CV„00192,Ð Ô$  Ð1996€WL€622659€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€29,€1996).Ð À  ÐÔ‡XXXXÔÌÔ#†XXXXȃ#Ôà  àIn€1991,€our€Supreme€Court€noted:€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àthe€development€of€Rule€11€jurisprudence€is€far€more€advanced€in€the€federal€courtsÐ pÀ Ðthan€in€the€state€system€because€the€provision€has€been€part€of€the€Federal€Rules€ofÐ \¬ ÐCivil€Procedure€since€1938,€in€contrast€to€Tennesseeððs€version€of€Rule€11€whichÐ H˜ Ðbecame€law€in€1971€as€part€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€While€thereÐ 4„ Ðhave€been€hundreds,€if€not€thousands,€Ô‡XXXXÔof€opinions€construing€Rule€11€in€the€federalÐ  p Ðsystem,€our€appellate€courts€have€only€once€issued€a€reported€opinion€on€the€topic€.Ð  \ Ð.€.€€It€is€for€this€reason€that€this€Court€finds€it€appropriate€to€examine€federalÐ øH Ðdecisional€authority€concerning€the€nature€of€the€questions€posed€by€the€instant€case.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€287.Ð ¼  ÐÌÔ#†XXXX †#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà  àBoth€the€federal€rule€and€the€Tennessee€rule€have€been€amended€since€our€Supreme€CourtÐ ”ä Ðmade€that€statement€in€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€However,€the€Tennessee€rule€remains€consistent€with€theÐ €Ð Ðfederal€rule,€and€we€continue€to€find€federal€law€helpful€in€the€interpretation€of€Tennesseeððs€Rule€11.Ô#†XXXX*ˆ#ÔÔ‡XXXXԀРl¼ ÐA€well„known€and€oft„cited€treatise€has€described€the€most€recent€changes€to€the€federal€rule€asÐ X ¨ Ðfollows:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àRule€11€was€amended€in€1993,€when€the€explicit€scope€of€the€rule,€its€certificationÐ #l! Ðrequirement,€and€the€sanctions€available€for€its€violation€were€changed€dramatically.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAs€the€Advisory€Committee€Notes€state,€these€revisions€broaden€the€scope€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðattorneysðð€and€litigantsðð€obligation€to€refrain€from€conduct€that€frustrates€the€aims€ofÐ Ì&"% ÐRule€1€and€call€for€greater€restraint€in€considering€the€imposition€of€sanctions.и'#&Ð Ð  ЇÓ  Ó***Ð ° ÐÓ=ÓÌà8  àThe€sanction€should€be€imposed€on€the€persons€„€whether€attorneys,€law€firms,€orÐ ˆØ Ðparties€„€who€have€violated€the€rule€or€who€may€be€determined€to€be€responsible€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€violation.€€The€person€signing,€filing,€submitting€or€advocating€a€document€hasÐ `° Ða€nondelegable€responsibility€to€the€court,€and€in€most€situations€should€beÐ L œ Ðsanctioned€for€a€violation.€€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌCharles€A.€Wright€&€Arthur€R.€Miller,€òòÔ#†XXàX<Š#ÔÔ‡XXàXÔFederal€practice€&€procedureóóÔ#†XXXX#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ,€ðð€1331€(2001€Supp.)Ô#†XXXXþ#ÔÐ  ` Ðò òó óÔ‡XXXXÔòòóóÌÓZÓIII.€€Rule€11€„€Provisions€ò òó óÐ è 8  ÐÓ™ÓÔ#†XXXXs#ÔÓ  ÓÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àÔ#†XXXX‘#ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02€provides€€in€pertinent€part:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àBy€presenting€to€the€court€(whether€by€signing,€filing,€submitting,€or€later€advocating)Ð ˜è  Ða€pleading,€written€motion,€or€other€paper,€an€attorney€or€unrepresented€party€isÐ „Ô  Ðcertifying€that€to€the€best€of€the€person's€knowledge,€information,€and€belief,€formedÐ pÀ Ðafter€an€inquiry€reasonable€under€the€circumstances,€€-€Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ð H˜ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€it€is€not€being€presented€for€any€improper€purpose,€such€as€toÐ 4„ Ðharass€or€to€cause€unnecessary€delay€or€needless€increase€in€the€costÐ  p Ðof€litigation;Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€the€claims,€defenses,€and€other€legal€contentions€therein€areÐ ä4 Ðwarranted€by€existing€law€or€by€a€nonfrivolous€argument€for€theÐ Ð  Ðextension,€modification,€or€reversal€of€existing€law€or€theÐ ¼  Ðestablishment€of€new€law;Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€the€allegations€and€other€factual€contentions€have€evidentiaryÐ €Ð Ðsupport€or,€if€specifically€so€identified,€are€likely€to€have€evidentiaryÐ l¼ Ðsupport€after€a€reasonable€opportunity€for€further€investigation€orÐ X ¨ Ðdiscovery.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.03€provides:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àIf,€after€notice€and€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€respond,€the€court€determines€thatÐ ô$D # Ðsubdivision€11.02€has€been€violated,€the€court€may,€subject€to€the€conditions€statedÐ à%0!$ Ðbelow,€impose€an€appropriate€sanction€upon€the€attorneys,€law€firms,€or€parties€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðhave€violated€subdivision€11.02€or€are€responsible€for€the€violation.€.€.€€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€A€sanction€imposed€for€violation€of€this€rule€shall€be€limited€toÐ )à$( Ðwhat€is€sufficient€to€deter€repetition€of€such€conduct€or€comparableÐ |*Ì%) Ðconduct€by€others€similarly€situated.€€Subject€to€the€limitations€inÐ h+¸&* Ðsubparagraphs€(a)€and€(b),€the€sanction€may€consist€of,€or€include,Ð ° Ðdirectives€of€nonmonetary€nature,€an€order€to€pay€a€penalty€into€court,Ð œì Ðor,€if€imposed€on€motion€and€warranted€for€effective€deterrence,€andÐ ˆØ Ðorder€directing€payment€to€the€movant€of€some€or€all€of€theÐ tÄ Ðreasonable€attorneysðð€fees€and€other€expenses€incurred€as€a€directÐ `° Ðresult€of€the€violation.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(a)€Monetary€sanctions€may€not€be€awarded€against€aÐ $ t Ðrepresented€party€for€a€violation€of€subdivisionÐ  ` Ð11.02(2).€.€.€.Ðü L ¸ ¸  ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓIV.€Sanctions€Against€Represented€Party€OnlyÐ Ô$  ÐÓÓÌà  àÔ‡XXXXÔHerein,€the€trial€court€granted€Defendantsðð€motion€for€sanctions€and€initially€€found€that€thereÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€no€factual€or€legal€basis€for€the€libel€lawsuit€and€that€Plaintiffs€filed€this€action€to€increase€theÐ ˜è  Ðcosts€of€the€other€lawsuit€regarding€zoning.€Ô#†XXXX…#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€While€the€trial€court€assessed€sanctions€againstÐ „Ô  ÐPlaintiffs,€it€refused€to€sanction€Plaintiffsðð€counsel€and€later€clarified€its€sanction€award€to€state€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€finding€was€based€on€Ô#†XXXXêž#ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02(1)€and€11.02(3),€omitting€the€ð ðno€legal€basisððÐ \¬ Ðground.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThus,€our€initial€inquiry€is€whether€Rule€11€authorizes€the€trial€court€to€impose€sanctionsÐ  p Ðagainst€a€party€who€is€represented€by€counsel,€while€not€imposing€sanctions€against€the€attorney.€Ð  \ ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02€authorizes€a€court€to€impose€sanctions€against€ð ðthe€attorneys,€law€firms,€orÐ øH Ðparties€that€have€violated€subdivision€11.02€or€are€ò òresponsible€for€the€violationó ó.ðð€€That€languageÐ ä4 Ðnecessarily€raises€the€question€of€when€a€represented€party€can€be€found€to€have€violated€11.02€orÐ Ô$ Ðto€have€been€responsible€for€such€violation.€€That€question€is€answered€in€one€particular€by€Tenn.Ð À ÐR.€Civ.€P.€11.03(2)(a)€which€disallows€the€award€of€monetary€sanctions€against€a€represented€partyÐ ¬ü Ðfor€violation€of€the€provision€requiring€certification€that€the€claims€in€a€filed€paper€have€a€basis€inÐ ˜è Ðlaw.€€By€omission,€this€subsection€implies€that€a€represented€party€can€be€sanctioned€for€violationÐ „Ô Ðof€either€of€the€other€two€provisions€of€11.02,€as€the€trial€court€did€herein.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€represented€parties€may€be€sanctioned€forÐ H!˜ ÐRule€11€violations€in€€òòBusiness€Guides€v.€Chromatic€Communications€Enterprises,€Inc.óó,€498€U.S.Ð 4"„  Ð533,€111€S.€Ct.€922€(1991).€€The€Court€determined€that€a€represented€party€who€signs€a€pleading€orÐ  #p! Ðother€paper€filed€in€litigation€may€be€sanctioned€monetarily.€€111€S.€Ct.€at€931.€€The€Court€held€thatÐ  $\" Ðð ða€represented€party€who€signs€his€or€her€name€bears€a€personal,€nondelegable€responsibility€toÐ ø$H # Ðcertify€the€truth€and€reasonableness€of€the€document.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€Supreme€Court€also€held,€ð ðRule€11Ð ä%4!$ Ðimposes€an€objective€standard€of€reasonable€inquiry€on€represented€parties€who€sign€papers€orÐ Ð& "% Ðpleadings,ðð€but€stated,€ð ðWe€have€no€occasion€to€determine€whether€or€under€what€circumstances€aÐ ¼' #& Ðnonsigning€party€may€be€sanctioned.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€934„35.€€Ð ¨(ø#' ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€Mr.€Meek€did€not€sign€the€complaint,€for€himself€or€on€behalf€of€ProjectÐ €*Ð%) ÐCreation.€€Although€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€reach€the€issue€of€nonsigning€parties€in€òòBusinessÐ l+¼&* ÐGuides,óó€several€lower€federal€courts€have€considered€whether€a€court€may€sanction€a€nonsigningÐ ° Ðrepresented€party,€and€have€concluded€that€it€may.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€United€States€v.€Ô_ÔInternatððlÔ_Ô€BrotherhoodÐ œì Ðof€Teamstersóó,€948€F.2d€1338,€1344€(2d€Cir.€1991)€(ð ðRule€11€subjects€the€client€„€ððthe€representedÐ ˆØ Ðpartyðð€„€to€sanctions€even€if€he€has€not€signed€the€offending€paper.ðð);òò€óó€òòBergeron€v.€NorthwestÐ tÄ ÐPublications€Incóó.,€165€Ô_ÔF.R.D.Ô_Ô€518,€521€(D.€Minn.€1996);€òò€Continental€Ins.€Co.€v.€Construction€Indus.Ð `° ÐServs.€Corp.óó,€149€F.R.D.€451,€454€(E.D.N.Y.€1993)€(ð ð[The€section€regarding€sanctions]€plainlyÐ L œ Ðcontemplates€the€imposition€of€sanctions€on€a€represented€party€who€does€not€sign€a€pleading,Ð 8 ˆ Ðmotion,€or€other€paper.€€Otherwise,€the€reference€in€that€sentence€to€[responsible€parties]€isÐ $ t Ðsuperfluous,€and€the€sentence€would€only€refer€to€the€ððperson€who€signedðð€a€pleading,€motion,€orÐ  ` Ðother€paper.ðð);€òòDonohoe€v.€Consolidated€Operating€&€Prod.€Corp.óó,€139€F.R.D.€626,€631€(N.D.€Ill.Ð ü L  Ð1991)€(noting€that€the€Supreme€Court,€in€òò€Business€Guidesóó,€declined€to€decide€whether€a€nonsigningÐ è 8  Ðparty€might€be€held€liable,€but€deciding€that€a€literal€reading€of€the€rule€required€such€a€holding).ò òó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àTennessee€courts€have€also€determined€that€non„signing€represented€parties€may€be€liable€forÐ ¬ü  ÐRule€11€violations.€€òòAlside€Supply€Ctr.€v.€Smith€Heritage€Siding€Co.,€Inc.óó,€No.€03A01„9702„Ch„Ð ˜è  Ð00069,€1997€WL€414982€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€25,€1997)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ „Ô  Ðfiled)€(a€non„signing€party€may€be€liable€for€Rule€11€violations);€òò€Al„Haddad€v.€Ritteróó,€No.€01A01„Ð pÀ Ð9608„CV„00389,€1997€WL€44389€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€5,€1997)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ð \¬ Ðapplication€filed)€(ð ðanyone€who€ððadvocatesðð€a€pleading€certifies€that€the€pleading€is€not€filed€toÐ H˜ Ðharass€or€delay€and€that€a€reasonable€inquiry€has€been€made€to€discover€the€facts€alleged.€€A€non„Ð 4„ Ðsigning€party,€therefore,€falls€under€the€provisions€of€Rule€11.ðð)Ð  p ÐÌà  àBecause€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.03€permits€sanctions€against€a€represented€party€ð ðresponsibleÐ øH Ðfor€the€violation,ðð€regardless€of€whether€that€party€actually€signed€papers€or€pleadings,€a€representedÐ ä4 Ðparty€may€be€held€liable€for€a€Rule€11€violation.€€Thus,€when€the€party€is€ð ðresponsible€for€theÐ Ð  Ðviolation,ðð€then€sanctions€against€the€party€alone€are€appropriate.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¼  ÐÌà@::ìàV.€€Standard€for€Measuring€ConductˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€Plaintiffs€had€violated€two€of€the€three€substantive€prongs€of€Rule€11:Ð l¼ Ðthe€claims€had€no€factual€basis€and€the€lawsuit€was€brought€for€an€improper€purpose.€Plaintiffs€argueÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€complaint€was€filed€for€anÐ D!” Ðimproper€purpose.€€Mr.€Meek€€maintains€that,€because€he€is€not€a€lawyer€and€Project€Creation€is€notÐ 0"€  Ða€sophisticated€corporate€entity,€a€court€must€review€their€actions€under€a€subjective€standard€toÐ #l! Ðdetermine€whether€the€sanctions€were€appropriate.€€They€also€assert€that€improper€motive€must€beÐ $X" Ðdetermined€by€applying€a€subjective€standard,€relying€on€language€in€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ðat€288,€that€ð ðexcept€as€to€improper€purpose,€subjective€good€faith€is€not€a€defense€to€Rule€11Ð à%0!$ Ðsanctions.ððÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àIt€is€well€settled€that€an€attorneyððs€conduct€is€to€be€measured€by€a€test€of€objectiveÐ ° Ðreasonableness€under€all€the€circumstances.€€€òòAndrewsóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€288;€òòÔ_ÔMcGaughÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGalbreathÔ_Ôóó,Ð œì Ð996€S.W.2d€186,€194€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòBusiness€Guidesóó,Ð ˆØ Ðimposed€the€same€standard€on€a€represented€party€who€signed€papers€or€pleadings.€€498€U.S.€at€554,Ð tÄ Ð111€S.€Ct.€at€935„36.€€We€see€no€reason€to€impose€a€different€standard€upon€a€Ô_ÔnonsigningÔ_Ô€party.€€òòSeeÐ `° ÐTemple€v.€Ô_ÔWISAPÔ_Ô€USA€in€Texasóó,€152€Ô_ÔF.R.D.Ô_Ô€591,€619€(D.€Neb.€1993)€(ð ðIn€determining€whether€aÐ L œ Ðviolation€of€Rule€11€has€occurred,€this€court€must€apply€an€ð ðobjective€reasonablenessðð€standard€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetermine€whether€the€pleading€was€frivolous,€groundless,€or€advanced€for€an€improper€purpose.ðð).Ð $ t ÐAlthough€not€universally€true,€most€federal€courts€have€applied€an€objective€standard€whenÐ  ` Ðconsidering€whether€a€violation€of€the€improper€purpose€restriction€has€occurred.€€òòWright€andÐ ü L  ÐMilleróó,€ðð€1335€at€85€(1990€and€2001€supp.).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€Plaintiffs€have€asserted,€this€court€has€determined€that€use€of€an€objective€standard€ofÐ À  Ðreasonableness€of€inquiry€should€be€applied€to€a€sophisticated€non„signing€party,€relying€on€federalÐ ¬ü  Ðdecisions€on€the€issue.€€òòÔ_ÔAlsideÔ_Ô€Supply€Ctr.óó,€1997€WL€414982€at€*3.€€We€do€not€conclude,€however,Ð ˜è  Ðthat€the€òòÔ_ÔAlsideÔ_Ôóó€opinion€requires€that€a€different€standard€be€applied€to€non„sophisticated€parties.€€InÐ „Ô  Ðfact,€this€court€has€stated,€in€a€case€involving€sanctions€against€represented€parties€who€were€notÐ pÀ Ðattorneys€that€ð ðthe€test€to€be€applied€in€Rule€11€cases€is€objective€reasonableness€under€all€theÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances.ðð€€òòAl„Haddad€v.€Ritteróó,€1997€WL€44389€at€*2€(citing€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2dÐ H˜ Ð284).€€In€òòAl„Haddadóó,€this€court€measured€the€partiesðð€conduct€by€a€test€of€objective€reasonableness.€Ð 4„ ÐòòIdóó.òòóóÐ  p ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€we€have€stated€the€test,€in€a€case€where€the€trial€court€found€a€counterclaim€toÐ øH Ðbe€without€basis€and€interposed€for€the€improper€purpose€of€causing€unnecessary€delay€and/orÐ ä4 Ðneedless€increase€in€the€cost€of€litigation,€as€follows:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA€trial€court€is€free€to€impose€appropriate€sanctions€under€Rule€11€if€it€determinesÐ ¨ø Ðthat€an€ò òobjectively€reasonable€party€ó óand/or€their€attorney€would€not€have€assertedÐ ”ä Ða€particular€claim.ЄÔÐ Ð  ÐÌòòRayburn€v.€Ô_ÔE.J.Ô_Ô€Constr.€Ô_ÔEngððg.Ô_Ô,€Inc.óó,€No.€03A01„9306„CV„00212,€1994€WL€27616€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð \ ¬ ÐApp.€Feb.€3,€1994)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(emphasis€added).€Ð H!˜ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€the€test€to€be€applied,€to€a€party€or€an€attorney,€regarding€improper€purpose€orÐ  #p! Ðthe€other€prongs€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02,€is€one€of€objective€reasonableness€under€all€theÐ  $\" Ðcircumstances.€€That€standard€allows€the€court€to€take€many€factors€into€consideration.׃$×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Such€aÐ ø$H # Ðstandard€certainly€allows€a€trial€court€to€consider€a€partyððs€lack€of€legal€sophistication€whenÐ ä%4!$ Ðdetermining€whether€to€impose€sanctions.Ð Ð& "% ÐÐ ¼' #& ÐÔ‡XXXXÔà  àWe€must€reject€Plaintiffsðð€other€argument€in€this€regard,€however.€€Plaintiffs€essentially€argueÐ ° Ðthat€without€Mr.€Meekððs€testimony€regarding€his€motivation€for€bringing€the€lawsuit,€the€trial€courtÐ œì Ðcould€not€conclude€his€motivation€was€improper.€€Relying€upon€the€ð ðsubjective€standardðð€argument,Ð ˆØ ÐPlaintiffs€assert€the€subjective€reasons€for€filing€a€complaint€ð ðcannot€possibly€be€weighed€withoutÐ tÄ Ðweighing€the€partyððs€own€statements€Ô#†XXXX6Ê#Ôwhether€by€live€testimony€or€other€admissionsÔ‡XXXXÔ.ðð€€We€cannotÐ `° Ðaccept€that€reasoning.Ô#†XXXXÃÌ#Ô€€First,€we€conclude€that€Plaintiffsðð€conduct€is€subject€to€a€test€of€objectiveÐ L œ Ðreasonableness€under€all€the€circumstances,€and€the€court€is€entitled€to€consider€any€evidence€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecord€relevant€to€that€inquiry.€€òòSee€Townsend€v.€Ô_ÔHolmanÔ_Ô€Consulting€Corp.óó,€929€F.2d€1358,€1366Ð $ t Ð(9th€Cir.€1990)€(ð ðThe€test€for€improper€purpose€is€objective,€and€.€.€.€it€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretionÐ  ` Ðto€find€that€[counselððs]€outward€behavior€manifested€an€improper€purpose€.€.€.ðð).€€This€court€hasÐ ü L  Ðupheld€a€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€sanctions€for€ð ðfiling€a€large€number€of€repetitive€and€unnecessaryÐ è 8  Ðmotions€that€have€required€the€court€on€repeated€occasions€to€consider€the€same€issues€based€onÐ Ô$  Ðsimilar€if€not€identical€facts€where€the€law€governing€such€circumstances€has€not€changed.ðð€€òòWrightÐ À  Ðv.€Ô_ÔQuillenÔ_Ôóó,€909€S.W.2d€804,€815€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€This€court€was€satisfied€from€the€record€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€litigation€that€this€conclusion€was€correct€and€the€violation€ð ðobvious.ðð€€òòSee€also€Al„Haddad€v.Ð ˜è  ÐRitteróó,€1997€WL€44389€at€*3€(reversing€the€trial€court,€but€both€the€trial€court€and€this€court€basedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€holding€solely€on€the€record€in€the€underlying€case).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€reasoning€advanced€by€Plaintiffs€would€allow€a€party€to€strategically€prevent€aÐ H˜ Ðcourt€from€imposing€sanctions€by€declining€to€appear€for€a€hearing€or€simply€testifying€that€his€orÐ 4„ Ðher€motives€were€proper.׃,×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,€in€the€case€before€us,€Mr.€Meek€had€the€opportunity€to€presentÐ  p Ðevidence€of€his€reasons€for€filing€this€lawsuit,€but€did€Ô_Ônot.׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Just€because€he€chose€not€to€testify,€theÐ  \ Ðtrial€court€was€not€precluded€from€relying€on€other€evidence€to€determine€whether€Rule€11€has€beenÐ øH Ðviolated€and€whether€sanctions€were€justified.òòóóÐ ä4 ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.€The€Findings€HereinÐ ¼  ÐÓÖÓÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àIn€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€determination€under€Rule€11,€appellate€courts€apply€an€abuse€ofÐ ”ä Ðdiscretion€standard€to€all€aspects€of€the€ruling.€€òòCooter€&€Ô_ÔGellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHartmarxÔ_Ô€Corpóó.,€496€U.S.€384,€405,Ð €Ð Ð110€S.€Ct.€2447,€2461,€110€L.€Ed.2d.€359€(1990);€€Ô#†XXXXÊÖ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòKrug€v.€Krugóó,€838€S.W.2d€197,€205€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð l¼ ÐApp.1992)€(finding€Tennessee€has€adopted€the€federal€ð ðabuse€of€discretionðð€and€ð ðdeferentialððÐ X ¨ Ðstandards€in€part€because€determinations€of€whether€Rule€11€has€been€violated€involveÐ D!” Ðð ðfact-intensive,€close€callsðð).€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àWe,€then,€review€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€Plaintiffs€violated€Rule€11€using€a€standardÐ $X" Ðthat:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àrequires€us€to€consider€(1)€whether€the€decision€has€a€sufficient€evidentiaryÐ Ì&"% Ðfoundation,€(2)€whether€the€court€correctly€identified€and€properly€applied€theÐ ¸'#& Ðappropriate€legal€principles,€and€(3)€whether€the€decision€is€within€the€range€ofÐ ° Ðacceptable€alternatives.€€While€we€will€set€aside€a€discretionary€decision€if€it€rests€onÐ œì Ðan€inadequate€evidentiary€foundation€or€if€it€is€contrary€to€the€governing€law,€we€willÐ ˆØ Ðnot€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court€merely€because€we€might€haveÐ tÄ Ðchosen€another€alternative.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌòòState€ex€rel.€Vaughn€v.€Kaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€244,€248€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citations€omitted).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ#†XXXXØ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà  àOur€review€necessarily€depends€on€the€condition€and€completeness€of€the€record.€€TheÐ  ` Ðappellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€presented€in€the€trial€court€preponderatesÐ ü L  Ðagainst€the€findings€of€fact.€òòÔ_ÔCoakleyÔ_Ô€v.€Daniels,óó€840€S.W.2d€367,€370€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1992).€To€thisÐ è 8  Ðend,€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€require€the€appellant€to€prepare€"a€transcript€ofÐ Ô$  Ðsuch€part€of€the€evidence€or€proceedings€as€is€necessary€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€completeÐ À  Ðaccount€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal."€€Tenn.€€R.€App.Ð ¬ü  ÐP.€24(b);€òòJohnson€v.€Harbinóó,€926€S.W.2d€236,€239€(Tenn.1996)€€In€the€absence€of€a€transcript€orÐ ˜è  Ðstatement€of€the€evidence,€a€presumption€arises€that€the€record€is€sufficient€to€support€the€trial€court'sÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment,€requiring€€this€court€to€affirm€the€judgment.€òò€Coakleyóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€370;€òòMcDonald€v.Ð pÀ ÐOnoh,€óó772€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1989);€òòIrvin€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóó,€767€S.W.2d€649,€653Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1988).Ô#†XXXXøÝ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ H˜ ÐÌÔ#†XXXX0ã#Ôà  àIn€Rule€11€practice,€the€party€seeking€relief€bears€the€burden€of€proving€that€conductÐ  p Ðwarranting€sanctions€occurred.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€€McGaugh€v.€Galbreathóó,€996€S.W.2d€186,€194€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  \ ÐApp.1998).€€Then€the€burden€shifts€to€the€party€opposing€sanctions€to€present€a€defense.€€Here,Ð øH Ðalthough€their€counsel€participated,€Plaintiffs€did€not€attend€the€hearing€on€the€sanctions€motion,€or€Ð ä4 Ðoffer€any€evidence€countering€that€which€Defendants€produced.€€As€the€trial€court€observed€at€theÐ Ð  Ðhearing€on€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€Mr.€MeekÐ ¼  ÐÌà8  àwas€on€notice€of€this€hearing.€€He€could€have€presented€proof.€€He€did€not€presentÐ ”ä Ðproof.€€I€donððt€know€why,€but€this€hearing€went€on€for€a€good€long€time,€about€anÐ €Ð Ðhour,€hour€and€a€half,€.€.€.€But€it€went€on€and€on,€but€I€kept€coming€back€to€theÐ l¼ Ðpleadings€and€the€letters€to€the€editor.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àNo€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€from€the€sanctions€hearing€was€presented€to€thisÐ 0"€  Ðcourt.€€Accordingly,€we€must€presume€that€the€evidence€supported€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÐ #l! ÐPlaintiffs€were€responsible€for€the€violation,€that€the€lawsuit€was€brought€for€an€improper€purpose,Ð $X" Ðand€that€the€libel€claims€were€without€factual€support.€€òòKing€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2d€216,€220€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCt.€App.€1998).Ô‡XXXXÔÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€stated,€the€trial€court€was€entitled€to€rely€upon€any€evidence€in€the€record€inÐ ¸'#& Ðdetermining€whether€a€violation€of€Rule€11€had€occurred.€€Ô#†XXXX·é#ÔIn€addition€to€the€pleadings€filed€in€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlawsuit,€at€the€time€the€motion€for€sanctions€was€being€considered,€the€record€contained€Mr.€MeekððsÐ )à$( Ðdeposition€and€the€transcript€from€the€meeting€of€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€in€which€ProjectÐ |*Ì%) ÐCreationððs€application€was€denied.€The€lack€of€merit€of€the€libel€claims€alleged€in€the€complaint,€theÐ h+¸&* Ðtiming€of€the€complaintððs€filing,€so€close€on€the€heels€of€Defendantsðð€filing€of€the€petition€forÐ ° Ðòòcertiorarióó,€and€the€content€of€the€letters€to€the€editor€written€by€Mr.€Meek,€local€members€of€theÐ œì ÐChristian€Coalition,€and€Defendants€provide€evidence€of€an€improper€purpose.€Moreover,€€Mr.Ð ˆØ ÐMeekððs€testimony€makes€clear€his€close€connection€with€local€members€of€the€Christian€Coalition.€Ð tÄ ÐHe€admitted€that€he€had€authorized€the€€the€head€of€the€local€branch€of€the€Christian€Coalition€toÐ `° Ðarrange€speaking€engagements€at€local€churches€for€him€ð ðin€a€general€sense.ðð€€Mr.€Meek€admittedÐ L œ Ðthat€when€he€gave€the€head€of€the€local€Christian€Coalition€permission€to€arrange€these€speakingÐ 8 ˆ Ðengagements,€he€asked€the€head€to€ð ðkeep€a€low€profileðð€on€the€philosophical€aspects€of€the€museum.Ð $ t ÐFrom€all€of€this,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€that€Rule€11€was€violated€and€sanctions€wereÐ  ` Ðjustified€are€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Ô‡XXXXÔÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€a€related€argument,€Plaintiffs€also€assert€that€Ô_ÔdueÔ_Ô€process€requires€that€the€party€have€theÐ Ô$  Ðopportunity€to€be€heard.€€They€assert€that€they€requested€an€evidentiary€hearing,€and€their€request€wasÐ À  Ðdenied.€From€the€record,€it€appears€that€request€was€made€after€the€sanctions€hearing€and€after€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€courtððs€imposition€of€sanctions.€€They€also€assert€that€this€courtððs€opinion€in€òòAlsideóó€requires€anÐ ˜è  Ðevidentiary€hearing€before€sanctions€can€be€imposed.€€Ô#†XXXXÝð#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔWe€do€not€disagree€with€this€courtððs€statementÐ „Ô  Ðin€òòAlsideóó€that€it€is€prudent€for€the€court€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing€before€imposing€sanctionsÐ pÀ Ðwhere€there€are€disputed€facts€or€issues€of€credibility.€€òòAlsideóó,€1997€WL€414€982€at€*4.€€In€the€caseÐ \¬ Ðbefore€us,€however,€Plaintiffs€were€given€the€opportunity€to€present€evidence;€they€were€notified€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€hearing€on€the€Rule€11€motion,€and€their€counsel€attended.Ô#†XXXXˆó#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XXXXÅõ#Ôòòóóò òó óPlaintiffs€also€assert€that€their€due€process€rights€were€abridged€because€they€received€noÐ  \ Ðnotice€that€they€might€be€sanctioned€for€filing€the€libel€action€for€an€ð ðimproper€purpose.ðð€€TheyÐ øH Ðcontend,€ð ðThroughout€most€of€the€motions€and€memorand[a]€submitted€by€Defendants€in€which€theyÐ ä4 Ðrequested€sanctions,€they€referred€generically€to€Rule€11€and€repeatedly€stated€that€the€case€wasÐ Ð  Ðððfrivolousðð€and€without€ððlegal€merit.ðð€€This€[implies]€that€the€basis€was€one€of€violation€by€theÐ ¼  Ðattorney.ððÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€record€refutes€this€contention.€€The€motion€for€Rule€11€sanctions,€filed€on€March€12,Ð €Ð Ð1998,€states€in€pertinent€part:€Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àCome€Defendants,€by€and€through€their€attorney€.€.€.€and€move€for€sanctions€underÐ D!” Ðthe€provisions€of€Rule€11€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€DefendantsÐ 0"€  Ðstated€that€the€Complaint€filed€against€them€on€January€22,€1998€was€presented€forÐ #l! Ðan€improper€purpose€and€is€without€factual€or€legal€basis.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€motion€also€clearly€stated€that€Defendants€sought€ð ðmonetary€sanctions€against€ProjectÐ à%0!$ ÐCreation,€Inc.,€Sean€Meek,€and€Ruston€L.€Hill,€Attorney€at€Law.ðð€€The€Plaintiffs€were€on€notice€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðmonetary€sanctions€were€sought€against€them,€and€they€had€opportunity€to€be€heard,€but€declined€toÐ ¸'#& Ðattend€or€to€present€evidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ô‡XXXXÔÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÔ#†XXXX¦ü#ÔÌÌÐ  h+¸&* Ðà@nnìàVI.€Amount€of€the€SanctionsˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAs€with€other€aspects€of€a€Rule€11€decision,€we€review€the€trial€courtððs€determination€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðamount€of€the€sanctions€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€The€Plaintiffs€maintain€that€theÐ tÄ Ðamount€they€were€sanctioned€was€far€greater€than€necessary€to€deter€future€filings€in€violation€ofÐ `° ÐRule€11.€€They€also€maintain€that€a€portion€of€the€attorney€fees€and€costs€awarded€to€DefendantsÐ L œ Ðwere€not€related€to€the€defense€of€this€action,€but€were€actually€incurred€in€the€chancery€court€caseÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelated€to€the€zoning€issue.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€amount€of€sanctions€must€be€limited€to€that€necessary€to€ð ðgive€effect€to€the€ruleððs€centralÐ ü L  Ðgoal€of€deterrence.ðð€€òòAndrewsóó,€812€S.W.2d€at€288.€€One€of€the€principal€purposes€behind€the€1993Ð è 8  Ðchange€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11,€which€parallels€the€1995€change€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.11,€involved€theÐ Ô$  Ðcourtððs€assessment€of€sanctions.Ð À  ÐÌÔ‡XXXXÔà8  àThe€1993€amendments€to€Rule€11€were€motivated€by€a€desire€to€curb€some€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðabuses€surrounding€Rule€11€motion€practice.€€By€adding€a€safe€harbor€provision€andÐ „Ô  Ðreducing€incentives€to€private€parties€to€seek€sanctions€under€the€Rule€through€itsÐ pÀ Ðemphasis€on€the€use€of€fines€paid€to€the€court€rather€than€the€opposing€party,€the€newÐ \¬ ÐRule€11€seeks€to€reduce€the€litigation€that€the€prior€Rule€had€generated.€€In€addition,Ð H˜ Ðby€making€the€imposition€of€sanctions€discretionary€rather€than€mandatory€andÐ 4„ Ðemphasizing€the€importance€of€a€partyððs€ability€to€pay€as€a€factor€in€determiningÐ  p Ðwhether€to€levy€sanctions€or€not,€the€new€Rule€seeks€to€protect€litigants€with€lessÐ  \ Ðresources€and€prevent€the€unfair€application€of€the€Rule.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†XXXX™#ÔÌòòWright€v.€Milleróó,€ðð€1331€(2001€Supp.)Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Advisory€Committee€Notes€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11,€as€revised€in€1993,€are€enlightening.€Ð ¨ø ÐIn€pertinent€part,€they€state:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àThe€court€has€available€a€variety€of€possible€sanctions€to€impose€for€violations,€suchÐ l¼ Ðas€striking€the€offending€paper;€issuing€an€admonition,€reprimand,€or€censure;Ð X ¨ Ðrequiring€participation€in€seminars€or€other€educational€programs;€ordering€a€fineÐ D!” Ðpayable€to€the€court;€referring€the€matter€to€disciplinary€authorities€.€.€.€the€rule€doesÐ 0"€  Ðnot€attempt€to€enumerate€the€factors€a€court€should€consider€in€deciding€whether€toÐ #l! Ðimpose€a€sanction€or€what€sanctions€would€be€appropriate€in€the€circumstances;€but,Ð $X" Ðfor€emphasis,€it€does€specifically€note€that€a€sanction€may€be€nonmonetary€as€well€asÐ ô$D # Ðmonetary.€€Whether€the€improper€conduct€was€willful,€or€negligent;€whether€it€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðpart€of€a€pattern€of€activity,€or€an€isolated€event;€whether€it€infected€the€entireÐ Ì&"% Ðpleading,€or€only€one€particular€count€or€defense;€whether€the€person€has€engaged€inÐ ¸'#& Ðsimilar€conduct€in€other€litigation;€whether€it€was€intended€to€injure;€what€effect€itÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhad€on€the€litigation€process€in€time€or€expense;€whether€the€responsible€person€isÐ )à$( Ðtrained€in€the€law;€what€amount,€given€the€financial€resources€of€the€responsibleÐ |*Ì%) Ðperson,€is€needed€to€deter€that€person€from€repetition€in€the€same€case;€what€amountÐ h+¸&* Ðis€needed€to€deter€similar€activity€by€other€litigants;€all€of€these€may€in€a€particularÐ ° Ðcase€be€proper€considerations.€€The€court€has€significant€discretion€in€determiningÐ œì Ðwhat€sanctions,€if€any,€should€be€imposed€for€a€violation,€subject€to€the€principle€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€sanctions€should€not€be€more€severe€than€reasonably€necessary€to€deter€repetitionÐ tÄ Ðof€the€conduct€by€the€offending€person€or€comparable€conduct€by€similarly€situatedÐ `° Ðpersons.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11,€Advisory€Committee€Notes€to€1993€Amendments.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àTherefore,€the€amount€of€monetary€sanctions€is€to€be€set€with€the€goal€of€deterrence€in€mind.€Ð ü L  ÐAlthough€Plaintiffs€assert€that€the€amount€awarded€exceeded€that€necessary€to€deter€future€filings,Ð è 8  Ðthey€point€to€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€that€argument.€€As€discussed€earlier,€no€transcriptÐ Ô$  Ðor€statement€of€the€evidence€from€the€sanctions€hearing€was€filed.€€Therefore,€we€must€presume€thatÐ À  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€the€amount€necessary€for€deterrence€is€supported€by€theÐ ¬ü  Ðrecord.€€As€long€as€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€supported€by€the€evidence,€made€upon€appropriateÐ ˜è  Ðlegal€principles,€and€within€the€range€of€acceptable€alternatives,€we€will€not€disturb€that€decision.€Ð „Ô  ÐòòState€ex€rel.€Vaughn€v.€Kaatrudeóó,€21€S.W.3d€at€248.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAdditional€limitations€apply,€however,€where€the€sanction€involves€payment€to€the€otherÐ H˜ Ðparty€of€expenses€incurred€because€of€the€violation.€€The€court€may,€ð ðon€motion€and€[if]€warrantedÐ 4„ Ðfor€effective€deterrence€[enter]€an€order€directing€payment€to€the€movant€of€some€or€all€of€theÐ  p Ðreasonable€attorneysðð€fees€and€other€expenses€incurred€as€a€òòdirect€resultóó€of€the€violation.ðð€€Tenn.€R.Ð  \ ÐCiv.€P.€11.03(2)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àSince€the€purpose€of€Rule€11€sanctions€is€to€deter€rather€than€to€compensate,€the€ruleÐ Ð  Ðprovides€that,€if€a€monetary€sanction€is€imposed,€it€should€ordinarily€be€paid€intoÐ ¼  Ðcourt€as€a€penalty.€€However,€under€unusual€circumstances,€particularly€for€(b)(1)Ð ¨ø Ð[improper€purpose]€violations,€deterrence€may€be€ineffective€unless€the€sanction€notÐ ”ä Ðonly€requires€the€person€violating€the€rule€to€make€a€monetary€payment,€but€alsoÐ €Ð Ðdirects€that€some€or€all€of€this€payment€be€made€to€those€injured€by€the€violation.€Ð l¼ ÐAccordingly,€the€rule€authorizes€the€court,€if€requested€in€a€motion€and€if€soÐ X ¨ Ðwarranted,€to€award€attorneyððs€fees€to€another€party.€€ò òAny€such€award€to€anotherÐ D!” Ðparty,€however,€should€not€exceed€the€expenses€and€attorneyððs€fees€for€theÐ 4"„  Ðservices€directly€and€unavoidably€caused€by€the€violation€of€the€certificationÐ  #p! Ðrequirement.ó ó€€If,€for€example,€a€wholly€unsupportable€count€were€included€in€aÐ  $\" Ðmulti„count€complaint€or€counterclaim€for€the€purpose€of€needlessly€increasing€theÐ ü$L # Ðcost€of€litigation€to€an€impecunious€adversary,€any€award€of€expenses€should€beÐ è%8!$ Ðlimited€to€those€directly€caused€by€inclusion€of€the€improper€count,€and€not€thoseÐ Ô&$"% Ðresulting€from€the€filing€of€the€complaint€or€answer€itself.€€ÐÀ'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11,€Advisory€Committee€Notes€to€1993€Amendments.Ð ˜)è$( ÐÌÐ p+À&* Їà  àPlaintiffs€assert€that€the€sanction€should€be€limited€to€the€amounts€necessary€to€defense€ofÐ ° Ðthis€lawsuit;€that€the€award€includes€services€provided€in€the€zoning€case;€and€that€some€entries€inÐ œì Ðthe€attorneyððs€bill€are€not€specific€to€either€case.€€They€also€challenge€some€activities€as€notÐ ˆØ Ðð ðreasonably€necessary.ðð€€Defendants€assert€that€they€paid€counsel€$3000€for€fees€and€expensesÐ tÄ Ðrelated€to€the€zoning€case€and€that€actions€taken€by€their€counsel€in€the€zoning€case,€including€theÐ `° Ðdeposition€of€Mr.€Meeks€and€the€second€hearing€before€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals,€wereÐ L œ Ðð ðnecessary€portions€of€the€Circuit€Court€record€in€order€to€show€the€lack€of€merit€in€PlaintiffsððÐ 8 ˆ Ðlawsuit.ððÐ $ t ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€Defendants,€Judy€Pratt,€submitted€an€affidavit€with€detailed€bills€from€DefendantsððÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€reflecting€the€expenses€and€attorneyððs€fees€sought.€The€attorney€billed€Defendants,€who€wereÐ è 8  Ðalso€his€clients€as€Plaintiffs€in€the€chancery€court€lawsuit,€for€his€services€in€both€lawsuits.€€HeÐ Ô$  Ðprovided€them€with€combined€bills,€the€total€of€which€was€$11,865€for€legal€services€and€$692.40Ð À  Ðfor€expenses.€€In€the€affidavit,€Plaintiffs€subtracted€from€this€total€€the€$3,000€retainer€DefendantsÐ ¬ü  Ðpaid€their€counsel€when€they€hired€him€to€challenge€the€Zoning€Boardððs€approval€of€Mr.€MeekððsÐ ˜è  Ðapplication€and€$294.50€they€paid€in€initial€expenses€related€to€that€lawsuit.€Thus,€the€total€amountÐ „Ô  Ðrequested€was€$9,262.90,€which€represented€fees€and€costs€associated€with€both€lawsuits.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€its€initial€order€awarding€sanctions,€the€trial€court€awarded€judgment€in€the€amount€ofÐ H˜ Ð$9,262.90,€based€upon€its€finding€that€the€lawsuit€had€been€filed€to€increase€the€costs€of€the€pendingÐ 4„ Ðzoning€case.€€That€order€begins€with€a€recitation€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€motions€filed,€theÐ  p Ðrecord€as€a€whole,€including€affidavits€presented,€and€argument€of€counsel.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€again€considered€the€amount€of€sanctions€in€the€hearing€on€Mr.€Meekððs€motionÐ ä4 Ðto€alter€and€amend€the€judgment.€€In€response€to€the€motion,€counsel€for€Defendants€had€filed€anÐ Ð  Ðaffidavit€stating€he€had€represented€Defendants€in€two€actions€in€two€courts,€but€that€the€factual€basisÐ ¼  Ðof€the€two€lawsuits€was€the€same.€€ð ðMuch€of€the€work€in€the€Circuit€Court€and€Chancery€courtÐ ¨ø Ðoverlapped€since€the€factual€basis€was€the€same.€€The€affidavit€of€Ms.€Judy€Pratt€denotes€legal€feesÐ ”ä Ðand€litigation€costs€that€have€been€incurred€by€Defendants€in€their€legal€battle€concerning€NoahððsÐ €Ð ÐArk.ðð€€Following€the€hearing,€the€court€entered€an€order€stating:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àbased€upon€the€record,€the€Court€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€litigation€fees€and€costsÐ D!” Ðinvolved€in€the€Circuit€Court€case€and€the€Chancery€Court€action€were€interrelatedÐ 0"€  Ðand€any€attorney€fees€involved€after€January€22,€1998,€[the€date€the€libel€complaintÐ #l! Ðwas€filed]€were€properly€considered€by€the€Court,€subject€to€the€allowance€for€moniesÐ $X" Ðpaid€by€Defendants€for€the€retainer€fee.€€Therefore,€the€Court€refused€to€alter€orÐ ô$D # Ðamend€the€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$9,262.90.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€amount€of€sanctions€awarded€as€attorney€fees€and€expenses€incurred€by€the€other€partyÐ ¸'#& Ðmust€be€supported€by€evidence€in€the€record.€€òòWright€v.€Quillenóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€815.€It€is€clear€fromÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€record€that€not€all€the€fees€and€expenses€awarded€were€attributable€directly€and€unavoidably€toÐ )à$( Ðthe€complaint€filed€in€this€lawsuit.€€The€pending€zoning€case€would€have€proceeded,€requiringÐ |*Ì%) ÐDefendants€herein€to€incur€attorney€fees€and€expenses€even€if€this€libel€action€had€never€been€filed.€Ð h+¸&* ÐWhile€we€do€not€doubt€that€some€actions€taken€in€the€zoning€case€were€also€related€to€defense€of€thisÐ ° Ðlibel€action,€we€cannot,€based€on€the€record€before€us,€accept€the€conclusion€that€all€legal€work€doneÐ œì Ðon€behalf€of€these€clients€after€the€date€of€the€filing€of€this€lawsuit€was€the€result€of€PlaintiffsððÐ ˆØ Ðviolation€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€For€purposes€of€assessing€sanctions,€the€issue€is€what€expensesÐ tÄ Ðwere€incurred€because€of€the€filing€of€the€libel€lawsuit€for€an€improper€purpose€and€without€factualÐ `° Ðsupport.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€assessing€the€total€of€attorney€fees€and€costsÐ $ t Ðassociated€with€both€lawsuits€which€were€incurred€after€the€filing€date€of€this€lawsuit€as€sanctions,Ð  ` Ðand€remand€for€a€recalculation€of€the€amount€owed.€€Only€those€fees€and€costs€determined€to€haveÐ ü L  Ðdirectly€resulted€from€the€filing€of€this€action€may€be€assessed€as€sanctions€and€taxed€to€Plaintiffs.€Ð è 8  ÐWe€agree€that€the€trial€court€may€consider,€as€a€direct€result€of€the€filing€of€this€lawsuit,€anyÐ Ô$  Ðincreased€costs€to€Defendants€herein€incurred€in€the€zoning€case,€since€the€trial€court€found€theÐ À  Ðimproper€purpose€to€be€to€increase€those€costs.€€We€also€agree€that€services€needed€in€both€lawsuitsÐ ¬ü  Ðmay€be€considered€and€appropriately€apportioned.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  ÓV.€ConclusionÐ pÀ ÐÓ2ÓÌà  àWe€affirm€the€imposition€of€sanctions€on€Plaintiffs,€but€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€forÐ H˜ Ða€recalculation€of€the€amount€of€sanctions.€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€one€half€to€Appellants€andÐ 4„ Ðone€half€to€Appellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ ¼  Ð