WPC  T.Lp(LRPtr!'ZXՙm9 Ҟimy Нov9<'Př/7Zf(>l)n|MݟiM1Yﴜ/1.ms'Xz/ @Qw/iype(^:9iަ=hm! (* ֭:q|c2zp<#b0 YXϖ&$eKԏlkifwf8 !o i$7'kPxh XSFƍ[J`#@U F %G 0:M ^ w 4   m UB U8 ASM 0 ~ 0 D  b .~~I DVpU:    DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD B$ 0V 0V@ 0D D5HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0<Q 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,'L Y'(ɟ3|xU&@FZ*CaslonOpnface BT <Q 9Z+ Courier New Z[\]_E<<C(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    3    _) XXItisabundantlyclearfromtherecordbeforeusthattheWidowandat  leasttwoofReedschildrenfromhisearliermarriagewereatoddsover ` financialmattersarisingoutofReedsdeath.Threeofthesedisputesfound ` theirwaytothisCourt.See EstateofLowellKennethReed,Deceased,Reedv.  Reed ,C/ANo.03A019507PB00230,1995WL614180(_Tenn.Ct.App_._E.S._,filed | October20,1995); InreEstateofLowellKennethReed,Deceased,Reedv. 8 Reed ,C/ANo.03A019602PB00045,1996WL480738(_Tenn.Ct.App_._E.S._,filed D August26,1996); Reedv.Reed ,C/ANo.03A019703CV00075,1997WL414977   (_Tenn.Ct.App_._E.S._,filedJuly25,1997). ($USUS.,    5    _) XXOnethirdofthedepositedamountis$57,387.72. $ ($USUS.,    6    _) XXThebalanceofthe_interpleaded_Ԁamount,afterpaymentofthelitigation  andrelatedexpenses,thefeeoftheNicholsonlawfirm,andtheclerksfee ` of5%oftheinterestaccruedonthedepositedfunds,wastobedividedone ` thirdtotheWidowandtwothirdstoReedschildren.See Fosterv._Jeffers_ ,  813S.W.2d449,452(_Tenn.Ct.App_.1991)(proceedsofawrongfuldeathaction | aretobedistributedinaccordancewiththeintestacystatutes).  ($USUS.,    1    _) XXInthewrongfuldeathaction,thejuryawardedtheWidow$153,000,  afterreducingthedamagesdeterminedbythejurybecauseofReeds ` comparativefaultof49%.Thedifferencebetweenthejurysverdictandthe ` amountpaidintocourtrepresentsaccruedinterest. ($USUS.,    4    _) XXThecomplainthadsoughtdamagesof$6,500,000.  ($USUS.,    8    _) XXInterestinglyenough,theDaughtersbriefacknowledgesthatthe  Nicholsonlawfirm didthelionsshareofthetrialpreparationandtried ` thecasebeforethejury.SeeSectionVofthisOpinion. ? ($USUS.,    2    _) XXThepartiesagreethattheWidowhadthestatutoryrighttopursuethe  wrongfuldeathclaim.See_T.C.A._Ԁ205110(a)(1994). : ($USUS.,    9    _) XXWecannottellfromtherecordbeforeuswhetherMs._Sobieski_s   attachedstatementswereeverfiledinthetrialcourt. f ["USUS.,  _XXXXdXX   Ad FILEDYd  December28,1999 && Cecil_Crowson_,Jr. ff AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular  ($USUS.,    7    _) XXItisalsoclearthattheNicholsonlawfirmappealed_unsuccessfuly_  ЄtotheSixthCircuitfromthejurysassessmentofdamagesof$300,000. ` See Reedv.PSTVans,Inc. ,1998WL466573(6thCir.,filedJuly31,1998). dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  YYYY)!dxdx !USUS.,  _TR[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T8Xdd8@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  x _B2.jz_ `@Ett/ Zx@$ATKNOXVILLE p    \    `     h     E199901963_COA_ԄR3CV `  PSTVANS,INC.and0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#)C/ANO.03A019901CV00113 \ (#(# JAMESA._COUTERMARSH_,0 h 0h(#h(#) 2 (#(#    `     h   )      ` Plaintiffs,0 h 0h(#h(#) (#(#    `     h   ) d  v.0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)   p      x  : (#(#    `     h   ) `     `     h   ) 6    `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE   GINGERGAYLEREED,0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#)_BLOUNT_ԀCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT(#(#    `     h   ) h    ` DefendantAppellant,) >    `     h   ) d    `     h   ) : and0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)(#(#    `     h   )     `     h   ) l ROSIECLARKREED,0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#)B(#(#    `     h   )HONORABLEW.DALEYOUNG, h    ` DefendantAppellee.0  )JUDGE>(#(# ForAppellant0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#ForAppelleeF !(#(# WANDAG._SOBIESKI_0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#JOEH.NICHOLSON!B#(#(# R.RICHARDCARL,II0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#_ANGELIA_ԀD._MORIE_"$(#(# _Sobieski_,_Messer_Ԁ&Associates0  Nicholson,Garner&_Duggan_#%(#(# Knoxville,Tennessee0 h 0h(#h(#_Maryville_,Tennesseet$&(#(# @$ XXXX   eX XOPINION  \d  e XX \dԈ 3.8  95? ЇAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#Susano,J. \x(#x(#      ` Thisisanactionofinterpleader.Itpresentsa  disputebetweenthewidowofLowellKennethReed( Reed)andone \ ofhisthreeadultchildren.Theplaintiffsintheinstantcase, X PSTVans,Inc.( PST)andJamesA._Coutermarsh_Ԁ( _Coutermarsh_),   arejudgmentdebtorsasaresultofanactionfiledinfederal `  courtbyRosieClarkReed( theWidow)seekingtorecoverfor  \  thewrongfuldeathofherhusband.GingerGayleReed( the   Daughter),oneofReedschildrenbyanearliermarriage, d  intervenedinthefederalcourtaction.Becauseofa `  disagreementbetweentheWidowandtheDaughterregardingthe   properdivisionofthefundsfromthewrongfuldeathaction,the h plaintiffsfiledthisactionanddeposited$172,163.15 #  1      ׀withthe d clerkofthetrialcourt.FollowingahearingonJanuary26,  1999,thetrialcourtfileditsmemorandumopinionadoptingthe l dispositionofthefundssuggestedbytheWidow.TheDaughter h appeals,raisingthefollowingissues:     `     h      p      x    8 ` 1.Didthetrialcourterrinassessingthe !l" attorneysfeesoftheWidowandher !B# litigationexpensesagainsttheentirefund?"$` x` x   8 ` 2.Didthetrialcourterrinfindingthe t$& Widowsexpensestobereasonable,andshould J% ' theexpensesthatcouldhavebeen,but  &p!( werenot,recoveredfromthedefendantsin &F") thewrongfuldeathactionbecharged '#* againsttheDaughtersshareoftheproceeds?(#+` x` x   8 ` 3.Didthetrialcourterrindenyingthe N*%- Daughtersmotionforstayandin $+t&. distributingtheproceedsimmediately?+J'/` x` x @tt)I. R/*3    ` Thebasicfactsinthewrongfuldeathactionandthe 2-7 eventsleadinguptoitarenotindispute. V4/9  6R1;    ` ReeddiedJune27,1993,whenthemotorcyclethathe  wasridingcollidedwithatruckdrivenby_Coutermarsh_,an \ employeeofPST.Shortlyaftertheaccident,theWidowhiredJoe X H.Nicholson,Esquire,andhislawfirm,Nicholson,Garner&   _Duggan_Ԁ(collectively theNicholsonlawfirm),torepresenther `  inpursuingaclaimagainst_Coutermarsh_ԀandPSTforthewrongful  \  deathofherhusband. #  2      ׀TheNicholsonlawfirmsubsequently   preparedandfiledacomplaintintheUnitedStatesDistrict d  CourtfortheEasternDistrictofTennesseeatChattanoogastyled `   RosieC.Reed,individuallyandaswidowofLowellKennethReed,   deceasedv.PSTVans,Inc.,acorporation,andJamesA. h _Coutermarsh_.OnSeptember6,1995,thefederalcourtenteredan d orderpermittingtheDaughtertointerveneasapartyinthe  pendingwrongfuldeathaction.Thatcourtfound thatwithout l intervention[theDaughters]interestasapracticalmatter h wouldnotbeprotectednorwouldherinterestbeadequately  representedbyexistingparties,quotingfromRule24(a), p  _Fed.R.Civ.P._ #  3      ׀TheDaughterwasrepresentedinthefederalcourt !l" action,assheishere,byWandaG._Sobieski_,Esquire,andher "$ lawfirm,_Sobieski_,_Messer_Ԁ&Associates(collectively the t$& _Sobieski_Ԁlawfirm).  &p!(    ` Thefederalcourtactionwenttotrialbeforeajury. x)$, ThatjuryfoundinfavoroftheWidowsclaimandassessed $+t&. damagesof$300,000,,  #  4      ׀butfoundthatReedwas49%atfault. , (0 Accordingly,theawardwasreducedbythejuryto$153,000. |.)2 Ї@88)II.     ` Intheinstantcase,theNicholsonlawfirmfileda X NoticeofAttorneysLien,claiming,onbehalfoftheWidow,   litigationandrelatedexpensesof$103,215.32anditscontract `  attorneysfeeof$57,330,beingapproximately #  5      ׀onethirdofthe  \  amountdepositedincourtbytheplaintiffsinthisinterpleader   action. d     ` Thetrialcourtheldahearingontheclaimofthe   NicholsonlawfirmonJanuary26,1999.OnFebruary18,1999, h thetrialcourtfiledamemorandumopinion,whichprovidesas d follows:    8 ` TheCourtheardoralargumentofCounselon h January26,1999relativetothelienfor > feesheretoforefiledbyMr.Nicholsonandas  tocertainexpensesclaimedbyDefendant,  RoseClarkReed,fromtheproceedsondeposit p  intheabovecaptionedcase.TheCourttook F ! themattersunderadvisement.!l"` x` x   8 ` TheCourthascarefullyreviewedallofthe "$ dataofrecordinthiscaseandconcludes #% thatMr.Nicholsonisentitledtothefees t$& perhiscontractandtheexpensesclaimedare J% ' reasonableandwerenecessarytoprosecute  &p!( thecauseofactiontojudgment.&F")` x` x   8 ` Accordingly,theCourtexpresslyapproves (#+ expensesclaimedbyRosieClarkReedinthe x)$, amountof$103,215.32andMr.Nicholsons N*%- feesbasedononethirdofthetendered $+t&. judgment.+J'/` x` x   8 ` Mr.Nicholsonwillprepareanappropriate -(1 Order,pursuanttotheprovisionsofthis |.)2 MemorandumandsubmittoopposingCounselfor R/*3 theirapprovalastoformandtheOrderwill (0x+4 betenderedtotheCourtforentrynotlater 0N,5 thantwenty(20)daysfromthedatehereof.1$-6` x` x   ,5|0: @(III.     ` Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovouponthe X record,withapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourts   factualdeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderates l  otherwise.Rule13(d),_T.R.A.P._; UnionCarbideCorp.v.  h  _Huddleston_, 854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993); Wrightv.Cityof 4  Knoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thetrialcourts   conclusionsoflaw,however,areaccordednosuchpresumption. |   Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); (x  Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993). D @88)IV. l    ` TheDaughtersprimaryargument,initsmostgeneral  terms,isthatthetrialcourtsdivision_ #  6      _Ԁofthefundisnot p equitable.Morespecifically,herargumentsareasfollows:(1)  l  thelitigationexpensesandtheonethirdcontingentfeeofthe !" Nicholsonlawfirmshouldnothavebeenchargedagainstthe t#$ entirefund;(2)thedisbursementtotheNicholsonlawfirmfor  %p & feesandreimbursementofexpensesamountedto93%ofthetotal &"( fundwhichisaninequitablepercentageoftherecovery;(3)the x(#* trialcourterredinapprovingsomeclearlyunreasonable $*t%, expenses;and(4)theNicholsonlawfirmshouldnotbeallowedto + '. collectexpensesfromthefundthatwerecollectablefromthe |-(0 defendantsinthewrongfuldeathaction. (/x*2   2-6 @tt)V.     ` Thepartiessharplydisagreeastotheinvolvementof X the_Sobieski_Ԁlawfirminthewrongfuldeathaction.Thereis   lessdisagreementastotheinvolvementoftheNicholsonlawfirm `  inthepreparationandtrialofthefederalcourtaction. #  7      ׀This  \  latterassertioncanbeseenfromthefollowingexcerptfromthe   replybrieffiledbythe_Sobieski_Ԁlawfirmonbehalfofthe d  Daughter: `  _   `     h     _  8 ` [TheDaughter]hasneverdisputedthefact h thatappelleescounseldidthelionsshare > ofthetrialpreparation,norhasshe d disputedthathearguedthecasetothejury. : Inhiswords,hehad exclusivecontrolover  thelitigation.Infact,itwasatthe  requestofappelleescounselthat[the l Daughters]attorneydidnotsitatthe B counselstable,andkeptalowprofilein h thecourtroom,soasnottocreateany > questioninthejurysmindastowho[the  Daughter]wasandwhyshehadseparate  counsel.p ` x` x (Citationomitted).Wewillnowexaminethepartiesrespective "$ positionswithrespecttotheworkofthe_Sobieski_Ԁlawfirm. t$&    ` IntheDaughtersbrief,shestatesthat '#*   8 ` [_i]t_Ԁisundisputedthat[theDaughter] $+t&. activelyintervenedinthefederallawsuit, +J'/ wasrepresentedatdepositions,andappeared , (0 throughoutthetrial.Shewasnotapassive -(1 beneficiary.|.)2` x` x If,bythisstatement,theDaughterisclaimingthathercounsel, 1$-6 the_Sobieski_Ԁlawfirm,playedanactiveroleinthepreparation 3.8 andtrialofthefederalcourtlawsuit,thatassertionishardly 850:  undisputed;ratheritissharplycontestedbytheWidow,as  demonstratedbythefollowingexcerptsfromtheWidowsbrief: \   8 ` Counselfor[theWidow][was]responsiblefor   anddidinfactdoallsubstantivework   associatedwiththetrialofthematter.` ` x` x @XX%***  \    8 ` [PriortothetimethattheDaughter   intervened],[theWidow]andhercounsel   engagedinextensivediscoveryand d  investigationregardingtheaccidentwhich :  claimedthelifeofLowellKennethReed.` ` x` x @XX%***     8 ` OnJuly21,1995,aftermuchofthe h investigationinthematterwasconcludedand > afterdiscoverywasatanend,[theDaughter] d filedamotiontointervene.:` x` x @XX%***    8 ` [TheDaughter]didnothingmorethan B hamstringthePlaintiffbelowinthe h presentationofthecase.>` x` x @XX%***    8 ` Counselfor[theWidow]conductedall F ! investigationinthematter,conductedall !l" discovery,andpresentedallevidenceat !B# trial."$` x` x @XX%*** t$&   8 ` ...theattorneysfor[theWidow]... &p!(` x` x   8 ` contributedallfundstowardtheexpenseof &F") thecomplexlitigation.'#*` x` x Itisclearfromthesecompetingexcerptsthattherespective $+t&. positionsofthepartiesastothecontributionoftheDaughter , (0 andhercounseltothesecuringofthejudgmentinthefederal .)2 courtactionare,infact,diametricallyopposed. 40+4 @88)VI. 3.8    ` Wehaverecognizedinearliercasesthattherelative 642< contributionsofpartiesandtheircounseltothesecuringofa 83> singlejudgment,inawrongfuldeathaction,thatinurestothe <:5@ benefitofmorethanonebeneficiaryisanimportant  considerationindecidinghowfeesandexpensesshouldbe \ assessed.Twounreportedcasesareparticularlyinstructive. X See Wheelerv.Burley ,C/ANo.01A019701CV00006,1997WL   528801(_Tenn.Ct.App_.M.S.,filedAugust27,1997),and Inre   EstateofStout ,C/ANo.01A019308CH00360,1994WL287765 L   (_Tenn.Ct.App_._W.S._,filedJune29,1994).Areviewofthesetwo h  casesrevealsthefollowingprinciplesconcerningtheproper   applicationofthe commonfunddoctrine. p     ` Generally,attorneysmaylookonlytotheclientswith  whomtheycontractfortheircompensation,evenwhereathird t partyincidentallybenefitsfromtheworkdonefortheclient.  p  Stout ,at*3(quoting Hobsonv.FirstStateBank ,801S.W.2d807,  809(_Tenn.Ct.App_.1990)).Thecommonfunddoctrineisan  exceptiontothisgeneralrule. Stout, at*3.Thedoctrine D providesthat aprivateplaintiff,orhisattorney,whose  `  effortscreate,discover,increaseorpreserveafundtowhich ! " othersalsohaveaclaimisentitledtorecoverfromthefundthe h#$ costsofhislitigation,includingattorneysfees. Id . %d & (quoting Vincentv.HughesAirWest,Inc. ,557F.2d759,769(9th &0"( Cir.1977)).Applicationofthedoctrineeffectivelyspreads (#*  litigationcostsproportionatelyamongallthebeneficiariesso X*%, thattheactivebeneficiarydoesnotbeartheentireburdenalone ,T'. andthestrangerbeneficiariesdonotreceivetheirbenefitsat -)0 nocosttothemselves. Stout ,at*3. \/*2    ` Wheretherearemultipleclaimantstoafund,eachof (1x,4 whichretainshisorherownattorneytoparticipateinthecase, 2$.6 however,thequestionofwhetherandhowthecommonfunddoctrine 4/8 shouldapplybecomesmoredifficult.Itcannotbesaidthat ,6|1: claimantswhocontributetoprocurementofafundthrough 7(3< individualeffortorexpensereceivetheirbenefitatnocostto 94> themselves.Thus,thecommonfunddoctrineisgenerallynot  appliedagainstpartiesretainingtheirowncounsel. Id .,at*4, \ seealso Wheeler ,1997WL528801at*4.However,wherethe (x contributionofa leadplaintifforattorneyandthe  D contributionoftheobjectingplaintifforattorneyareunequal,   courtsmayapplythecommonfunddoctrinetoavoidtheunjust L   enrichmentofthemorepassiveplaintifforattorney. Stout ,at H  *4; Wheeler ,at*4*5(bothcasesciting Hobson ,801S.W.2dat   809).      ` In Stout ,JeffreyLeeStoutdied,leavinghisdivorced 8 parentsashisnextofkin.Hismotherbroughtawrongfuldeath  actionandemployedthelawfirmofNealand_Harwell_Ԁonaone ` thirdcontingentfeebasis.Stoutsfatherhiredhisown  \ attorney.Nealand_Harwell_Ԁnegotiateda$560,000settlement,and  thefatherandhisattorneyobjectedtoNealand_Harwell_s d expensesandfeesbeingpaidoutoftheentirefund.Thetrial  `  courtfoundthat [_t]he_ԀservicesrenderedbyNeal&_Harwell_Ԁto ! " datehaveinuredtothebenefitoftheentireestateandboth h#$ potentialbeneficiariesandorderedNealand_Harwell_sonethird %d & feetobepaidoutoftheentirefund. Stout ,at*3.We &"( affirmed,holdingthat [_b]ecause_ԀNeal&_Harwell_Ԁdidthelions (#* share #  8      ׀ofthework,Neal&_Harwell_Ԁwasproperlypaidfromestate 8*%, fundsbeforethefundsweredividedbetweenthebeneficiaries. +4'.  Id .,at*4. -(0    ` Thefactsin Wheeler aresimilartothosein Stout . 1X,4 Theadultsonofdivorcedparentsdied,leavinghisparentsas 2$.6 hisonlynextofkin.Themotherbroughtawrongfuldeathaction 4/8 andemployedcounselonaonethirdcontingentfeebasis.The ,6|1: fatherhiredhisowncounseltopursuethesamewrongfuldeath  case,alsoonaonethirdcontingentfeeagreement.Thetrial \ courtfoundthatthemotherscounselhadperformedtwothirdsof X theworkinvolvedinprosecutingthecasewhilethefathers   counselhadperformedonethirdoftheworkinvolved.Thetrial `  courtthenawardedonethirdoftheentirefundasattorneys  \  feesandorderedthatthisfeebesplittwothirdstothe   motherscounselandonethirdtothefatherscounsel.On d  appeal,wenotedthatthetrialjudgehadfoundasafactthat `  themotherscounselhaddonethe lionsshareoftheworkand   thattherecord certainlysupportssuchafinding. Wheeler ,at h *3.Weconcludedthattheremedyfashionedbythetrialcourt 4  notonlyappearsfairandequitabletothisCourt,butiswell 0 withinthediscretionvestedintheTrialJudge. Id .at*5.     ` TheDaughterreliesonthecaseof TravelersIns.Co. T v.Williams ,541S.W.2d587(Tenn.1976). Williams involvesa    disputebetweenaninsuredandhisinsurerastowhetherthe !" insuredsattorneywasentitledtohisonethirdcontingentfee H#$ outoftheshareofarecoveryagainsta_tortfeasor_Ԁthat $D & representedtheinsurers_subrogation_Ԁinterest.Theinsurers &!( rightof_subrogation_Ԁaroseoutofmedicalpaymentsmadetothe L(#* insuredforthebenefitofhisminorchild.In Williams ,the )H%, insurancecompanyadvisedtheinsuredthatitwould handle[its] +'. own_subrogation_. Id .at588.Itadvisedtheinsuredthatit p-(0 didnotwanttheinsuredtoprotectits_subrogation_Ԁrights. Id.   technicalrecordincludestheNoticeofAttorneysLienfiledby  theNicholsonlawfirm,supportedbyadetailedlistingofthe \ litigationandassociatedexpensesintherevisedamountof X $103,215.32.Supportingbillsandcheckstakeupsome190pages   ofthetechnicalrecord.Alsoincludedinthetechnicalrecord `  aretheWidowsanswers,underoath,to26interrogatoriesand  \  requeststoproduce.Theseresponsespertaintoherfeecontract   withtheNicholsonlawfirmandherclaimedexpensesof d  $103,215.32. `     ` InresponsetotheWidowsfilings,Ms._Sobieski_Ԁfiled h heraffidavitstatingthatsherepresentedtheDaughter;thatshe d wasamemberingoodstandingoftheKnoxvilleBar;thather  standardhourlyratewas$135.00;that [_t]he_Ԁattachedstatements l representatrueandaccurateassessmentofattorneysfeesand h expensesinthiscase;thatthefeesandexpenseswere  reasonableunderthecircumstances;thathertotalfeesasof p  January24,1999,were$21,447.50 for225.50hoursatan !l" effectiverateof[$]95.11";thatherexpenseswere$645.27asof "$ January24,1999;thatshewasduefinancechargesof$5,802.05 t$& asofJanuary24,1999;andthathertotalentitlementwas  &p!( $27,894.82asofJanuary24,1999.Whiletheaffidavitrefersto '#*  attachedstatements,therearenoneintherecord. x)$,    ` Thereisaseriousdeficiencyinthisrecordwedo , (0 nothaveMs._Sobieski_s attachedstatementsand,more |.)2 importantly,wedonothaveatranscriptorstatementofthe (0x+4 evidencefromthecriticalhearingbeforethetrialcourton 1$-6 January26,1999.Thecourtsmemorandumopinionreflectsthat 3.8 thecourt carefullyreviewedallofthedataofrecordinthis ,5|0:  case.Thispresumablyincludesallofthematerialpresentlyin 6(2< thetechnicalrecord. #  9      ׀Significantly,thememorandumopinion   alsorecitesthatthetrialcourt heardoralargument.While, \ generallyspeaking,argumentofcounselisnotconsidered X evidence,see Statev.Roberts ,755S.W.2d833,836   (_Tenn.Crim.App_.1988),thatisnotthecasehere.Thisis   becausetheattorneyswhopresentedargumentweretheoneswho , |  knewbestwhateachlawfirmdidinthewrongfuldeath (  litigation.Asofficersofthecourt,theyhadaprofessional   responsibilitytotruthfullystatethefactsthatwerewithin 0  theirpersonalknowledgeonthecriticalsubjectofwhodidwhat , andwhen.Inthisrespect,theywerefactualwitnesses,andit  seemsbeyonddoubtthattheirstatementsinargumentwere 4 receivedbythetrialcourtasevidenceonthesesignificant 0 factualmatters.Inanyevent,thereiscertainlynothinginthe  recordnowbeforeustosubstantiatetheDaughtersapparent 8 claimthatherattorneysperformedvaluableservicesthat 4 contributedtothesecuringofthejudgmentinthiscase.      ` Therecordbeforeusdoesnotcontainallofthe "8$ evidencethatimpactedthetrialcourtsimplicitfindingthat $& therespectiverolesofthetwolawfirmsweresuchastojustify @&!( thecourtsdispositionofthejudgmentproceeds.Thesamecan '<#* besaidofthetrialcourtsdeterminationthattheWidows )$, expenseswerereasonable.Wesimplydonothaveacomplete D+&. recordoftheevidencereceivedbythetrialcourt.Itwasthe ,@(0 appellantsresponsibilitytofurnishusarecordthatwould .)2 permitustoreachtheissuesraisedbyher.SeeRule24, H0+4 _T.R.A.P._ԀIntheabsenceofsucharecord, wemustassumethat 2P-6 therecord,haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontained 3.8  sufficientevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsfactual X50: findings. _Sherrod_Ԁv._Wix_ ,849S.W.2d780,783(_Tenn.Ct.App_.  1992). |     ` Thepartiesmakemanystatementsintheirbriefs  $ regardingtheirservicesinthewrongfuldeathaction.These   statementsareimportantinestablishingtheirrespective , |  positions,buttheycannotbeacceptedbyusasevidence.Weare (  anappellatecourt.Wedonotreceivenewevidenceonappeal.   Ourroleistoreviewtheactionsoftrialcourtsbaseduponthe <  evidencepresentedtothosecourts. TennesseePublicServiceCo. 8 v.CityofKnoxville ,91S.W.2d566,572(Tenn.1936).Wecannot  dothatinthiscasebecauseofthedeficiencyintherecord.     ` Accordingly,wecannotsaythattheevidence ( preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindings  underpinningitslegaljudgment.Wecertainlycannotsay,under 0 theteachingsof Stout and Wheeler ,thatthereisnosetoffacts ,  intheinstantcasethatcouldpossiblyjustifythetrialcourts !" judgment. T#$ @(VIII. &!(    ` Theissueofthetrialcourtsfailuretograntastay *T%, isrenderedmootbyourdecisioninthiscase. +'. @88)IX. /X*2    ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costson `2-6 appealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothe  4\/8 trialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow. 51:    `     h     __________________________ 9`4>    `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J. 965?    CONCUR:  ______________________ X HerschelP.Franks,J. . ______________________ 6   D.Michael_Swiney_,J.