’WPC§ XwŽHų#9ņJ}¢ŗŲyøŽ«™Šk<ÆBō3”ź:Oņ«÷`nóżIN¤‡KPźö`푸Ģ[[_®ŚU”øĻį›b Ż²‹ųÄėqŃ(›Į&‡`=|}īķ>pÄÅ‘āqa딼ąčŲųĒL›&š}/ĘUįŹ÷‰­ł}ˆ<§”<&c ģÜ|ūĪd6fĘŌĀU”7šĖåČ>e@įÄ3Ńó“¾ąĻ×)yR5åÕ/^‘ƒ†w—s…ī tG3c™ę‰BA›©»§(J(VCŽ“µž•M† d¼•ł·° ą‰¶e4Éņˆ9Lį„śķ*xˆ+`6_a²ö 2ž¾·pŒ¦|ĪTQ3«ƒ™©ū‹“éRD T1z‡2)b‚T"d'pūuĘo40œr˜¦®Āż hYJśÆ!G“ėĻxk..8{°;f/ß¶*?Ćƒ®ŖŲ,wņ Lū l•t7¦rxwö‘¬ ĆĢ×Ė+„°¹Ą]†‡Ź‚“Š"m-2Ć(Ą‡ˆG˜¼(  "’²vžę¦^¤¾÷¼Ć*®: *&#E ¼ÆŸrN}‘Z£8^z3^ŽˆÄ}ō²üŖLEIŠĪc’.uč;~ĢDŚ~›¹ĄvbĒb#Į\ % U@# 0ˆc U Nė n­9 Nę zč Ņb b ^ 4 w@ 4D ĘX Ę Ęä ĘŖpN mƒEššššššššššššššššššššššššbœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ 0뤤¤¤ B 0¤¬ D3P D-ƒ 0K°° ASūĘN 0¤ 0Dø A«ü˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ČČ,,,,ČČ0»(ĘśI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular«<ž6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxž6X@ÉDQX@ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptA{Ÿ-s š‚,-ź:i¢×+00Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ- ł-(|G2¦£$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€K»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōļņ»»Ō d(|3É_$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€K»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3É_$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€K»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€K»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŌ€¼K»»»ŌŃ8€ ‘XXdģ»»d8ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼K»»¼KŌą@ü ü ģąŌ‡ī˜­ī»¼KŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ Ą Šą@kk$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼K»īī˜­+#ԈŠ ę& ŠÓ  ÓOctober€8,€2002€SessionŠ  L ŠŌ‡X ‘X»¼KŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼K»XX ‘#ŌRIVER€LINKS€AT€DEER€CREEK,€LLCņņóó€v.€JOSEPH€Ō_ŌMELZŌ_Ō,€ņņet€alóó.Ō‡X ‘X»¼KŌó óŠ  J ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyŠ  J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€01545€€€€€€€R.E.€Lee€Davies,€JudgeŠ ö 6 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¹ ` Aߊ ŗ ś  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2002„00043„Ō_ŌCOAŌ_Ō„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€31,€Ō_Ō2002Ō_ŌŠ µõ  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<Œ` Aߊ Ķ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThe€developer€of€a€golf€course€brought€a€fraud€complaint€against€the€property€owner€who€furnishedŠ ˆČ  Šthe€land€for€the€course,€and€against€the€companies€he€controlled.€€The€defendants€argued€that€theŠ t“ Šplaintiffššs€remedies€were€limited€by€the€arbitration€clauses€in€two€of€the€three€contracts€that€definedŠ `  Šthe€relationship€between€them.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€arbitration€clauses€were€not€applicableŠ LŒ Što€the€plaintiffššs€claims.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.€Ō#†¼K»XX ‘ŗ#ŌŌ‡X ‘X»¼KŌŠ 8x ŠÓżÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtŠ P ŠAffirmed€and€Remandedó óŠ ü< ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼K»ąX ‘L#ŌŌ‡X ‘X.¼KŌBen€H.€Ō_ŌCantrellŌ_Ō,€Ō_ŌP.J.Ō_Ō,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó€andŠ Ō ŠņņTom€E.€Gray,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Š Ą ŠĢPhillip€North€and€Ō_ŌR.J.Ō_Ō€Ō_ŌPursellŌ_Ō,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Joseph€Ō_ŌMelzŌ_Ō,€Deer€CreekŠ ˜Ų ŠGolf€Interests,€LLC€and€Deer€Creek€Construction,€Inc.Š „Ä ŠĢNancy€S.€Jones€and€Caroline€Thomas€Ō_ŌTrostŌ_Ō,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€River€Links€atŠ \œ ŠDeer€Creek,€LLC.Š H ˆ  ŠÓÓņ ņŌ#†¼K»XX ‘M#ŌņņóóŌ‡X ‘X»¼KŌÓ  ÓŃĄ°ŃŃĄ°Ńó óĢą@66'ģąņ ņOPINIONó óˆŠ  "`" ŠĢÓÓą@uuģąņ ņI.€ņņ€An€Ambitious€Projectó óóóˆŠ ų#8 $ ŠÓÓą  ąThe€parties€in€this€case€wished€to€develop€an€eighteen„hole€championship„caliber€golf€courseŠ Š%"& Šand€an€adjoining€residential€community€in€Spring€Hill,€Tennessee.€€To€accomplish€their€purposes,Š ¼&ü"' Šthey€entered€into€two€contracts:€a€Development€Agreement,€which€was€executed€on€May€1,€2000,Š Ø'č#( Šand€an€Operating€Agreement€under€the€Tennessee€Limited€Liability€Company€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Š ”(Ō$) Ššš€48„201„101,€et€seq.,€which€was€executed€shortly€thereafter.€€Both€of€these€agreements€containŠ €)Ą%* Šprovisions€that€claims€and€disputes€between€the€parties€have€to€be€settled€through€binding€arbitration.Š l*¬&+ ŠĢą  ąRiver€Links€at€Deer€Creek,€LLC,€(River€Links)€was€to€be€the€developer€and€owner€of€the€golfŠ D,„(- Šcourse.€€The€Operating€Agreement€set€out€the€terms€whereby€River€Links€was€to€regulated.€€JosephŠ 0-p). ŠŌ_ŌMelzŌ_Ō€was€a€member€of€the€Board€of€Managers€of€River€Links,€and€the€principal€of€another€entity,Š .\*/ż ŠŌ_ŌDeer€Creek€Golf€Interests,€LLC.€€That€entity€in€turn€was€a€member€of€River€Links,€along€with€fourŠ Ą Šindividuals.€€Mr.€Melz€was€also€the€president€of€Deer€Creek€Construction,€Inc.,€the€purported€ownerŠ ¬ģ Šof€the€tract€on€which€the€project€was€to€be€built.€€One€hundred€and€sixty€acres€was€planned€for€theŠ ˜Ų Šgolf€course,€while€50€acres,€more€or€less,€was€intended€for€residential€and€commercial€developmentŠ „Ä Šaround€the€periphery€of€the€course.€Š p° ŠĢą  ąThe€Development€Agreement€recited€that€Deer€Creek€Construction€was€the€fee€simple€ownerŠ H ˆ Šof€the€development€€property.€€Under€the€Agreement,€River€Links€was€to€pay€Deer€Creek€€$375,000Š 4 t Šfor€its€interest€in€160€acres,€and€the€construction€company€was€to€retain€the€50€acres,€and€to€developŠ  ` Šthe€residential€and€commercial€components€of€the€project.€€In€recognition€of€the€š šadditional€valueŠ  L  Šthe€Golf€Facility€adds€to€the€Residential€Development,šš€Deer€Creek€was€to€pay€River€Links€aŠ ų 8  Šdevelopment€fee€of€$1,000€per€residential€unit€for€the€first€375€units€it€completed,€payable€at€the€timeŠ ä $  Šof€the€closing€on€each€unit.Š Š  ŠĢą  ąSeveral€contract€provisions€were€designed€to€protect€the€interest€of€River€Links€in€theŠ Øč  Šdevelopment€fees:€regardless€of€the€sale€of€residential€units,€Deer€Creek€Construction€was€to€payŠ ”Ō  ŠRiver€Links€the€entire€$375,000€within€sixty„six€months€of€the€closing€of€the€DevelopmentŠ €Ą ŠAgreement;€if€Deer€Creek€wished€to€sell€all€or€part€of€the€development,€it€was€obligated€to€give€RiverŠ l¬ ŠLinks€the€right€of€first€refusal;€if€Deer€Creek€sold€the€property€to€a€third€party,€the€unpaid€balanceŠ X˜ Šon€the€$375,000€became€immediately€due€and€payable.Š D„ ŠĢą  ąIn€September€of€2000,€Joseph€Melz,€in€his€capacity€as€President€of€Deer€Creek€Construction,Š \ Šand€Joseph€Sauger€as€President€of€River€Links,€executed€a€document€whereby€River€Links€waivedŠ H Šthe€first€right€of€refusal€it€was€entitled€to€under€the€Development€Agreement.€€The€waiver€recited€thatŠ ō4 ŠMr.€Melz€and€his€wife€had€entered€into€a€purchase€and€sale€agreement€for€the€fifty„acre€property€withŠ ą  ŠMain€Street€Homes,€LLC;€that€Deer€Creek€Construction€would€pay€River€Links€$25,000€at€theŠ Ģ  Šclosing€of€the€sale;€that€this€sum€was€to€be€applied€to€the€$375,000€obligation;€and€that€if€Deer€CreekŠ øų Šrepurchased€the€property,€the€first€right€of€refusal€would€be€restored€to€River€Links.€€There€is€noŠ ¤ä Šarbitration€clause€in€the€Waiver€Agreement.Š Š ŠĢą  ąAccording€to€the€allegations€of€the€later„filed€complaint,€Mr.€Melz€induced€Mr.€Sauger€toŠ hØ Šsign€the€Waiver€Agreement€by€claiming€that€Main€Street€Homes€was€to€be€a€joint€venturer€with€DeerŠ T ” ŠCreek€Construction€in€the€residential€development,€and€that€the€title€had€to€be€transferred€so€thatŠ @!€  ŠMain€Street€could€obtain€financing.€€He€allegedly€claimed€that€the€transfer€was€a€mere€formality,€andŠ ,"l! Šthat€Deer€Creekššs€title€would€be€restored€in€due€course.€€Mr.€Melz€insisted€that€since€the€conveyanceŠ #X" Što€Main€Street€š šwas€not€really€a€salešš€it€did€not€trigger€the€obligation€to€pay€the€remainder€of€theŠ $D # Šdevelopment€fee.Š š$0!$ ŠĢą  ąThe€plaintiff€subsequently€learned€that€there€was€no€joint€venture€or€partnership€betweenŠ Č&#& ŠDeer€Creek€Construction€and€Main€Street€Homes,€and€that€Mr.€Melz€had€failed€to€disclose€that€theŠ “'ō#' Štransaction€was€an€outright€sale€for€$1.5€million€cash.€€Further,€in€his€capacity€as€President€of€DeerŠ  (ą$( ŠCreek,€Mr.€Melz€had€allegedly€executed€a€Quitclaim€Deed€to€himself€of€the€residential€portion€ofŠ Œ)Ģ%) Šthe€development€property€more€than€a€year€prior€to€the€date€of€the€Development€Agreement,€but€didŠ x*ø&* Šā ānot€register€the€deed€until€after€the€waiver€was€executed.€€Upon€learning€of€Mr.€Melzššs€actions,€RiverŠ d+¤'+ ŠLinks€demanded€that€the€waiver€be€retracted,€and€that€he€or€Deer€Creek€pay€the€$350,000€remainderŠ Ą Šof€the€development€fee.€€Mr.€Melz€refused.€€€Š ¬ģ Šā āĢą@s s ģąņ ņII.€€ņņProceedings€in€the€Trial€CourtˆŠ „Ä Šó óóóĢą  ąOn€September€6,€2001,€River€Links€filed€a€Complaint€for€Declaratory€Relief€and€forŠ \œ ŠDamages,€naming€Joseph€Melz€and€the€two€companies€he€controlled€as€defendants.€€The€plaintiffŠ H ˆ Šasked€the€court€to€set€aside€the€Waiver€Agreement€as€fraudulently€induced,€and€to€hold€Mr.€MelzŠ 4 t Šliable€for€compensatory€damages€of€$350,000,€as€well€as€for€punitive€damages,€costs€and€pre„€andŠ  ` Špost„judgment€interest.€€In€addition€to€the€fraud€claim,€the€complaint€also€included€claims€for€unjustŠ  L  Šenrichment€and€breach€of€fiduciary€duty.Š ų 8  ŠĢą  ąAdditionally€the€complaint€recited€that€both€River€Links,€LLC€and€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests,Š Š  ŠLLC€had€been€administratively€dissolved€for€failure€to€file€an€annual€report€with€the€Secretary€ofŠ ¼ü  ŠState,€but€that€both€entities€had€subsequently€reconstituted€themselves.€€The€plaintiff€asked€for€aŠ Øč  Šdeclaratory€judgment€as€to€the€validity€of€its€actions€subsequent€to€dissolution.Š ”Ō  ŠĢą  ąThe€defendants€responded€to€the€complaint€on€October€22,€2001,€by€ņ ņó ómoving€the€court€to€stayŠ l¬ Šthe€proceedings€and€to€enforce€the€Arbitration€Agreements.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29„5„303(d).Š X˜ ŠOn€November€26,€2001,€the€court€heard€oral€arguments€on€the€defendantsšš€ņ ņó ómotion.€€It€denied€theŠ D„ Šmotion€in€an€order€filed€on€December€6,€2001.Š 0p ŠĢą  ąThe€court€agreed€with€the€plaintiff€that€since€there€was€no€arbitration€clause€in€the€waiverŠ H Šagreement,€the€claims€based€upon€that€agreement€did€not€have€to€be€arbitrated.€€The€court€furtherŠ ō4 Šnoted€that€Mr.€Melz€was€not€a€party€in€his€individual€capacity€to€any€contract€requiring€arbitration,Š ą  Šand€reasoned€that€claims€against€him€personally€were€also€not€subject€to€arbitration,€but€that€š š[t]oŠ Ģ  Šthe€extent€those€claims€can€be€construed€to€state€a€claim€for€relief€against€Defendants€Deer€CreekŠ øų ŠGolf€Interests,€LLC€or€Deer€Creek€Construction,€Inc.,€those€claims€are€stayed€and€referred€toŠ ¤ä Šarbitration.šš€€Finally,€the€court€ruled€that€the€Declaratory€Judgment€claim€related€to€the€post„Š Š Šdissolution€actions€of€the€plaintiff€was€a€matter€of€statutory€interpretation€and€a€question€of€firstŠ |¼ Šimpression€for€the€Tennessee€courts,€and€that€for€reasons€of€judicial€economy,€the€court€would€retainŠ hØ Šjurisdiction€of€the€claim.€€This€appeal€followed.Š T ” ŠĢą@ĪĪģąņ ņIII.€€ņņThe€Waiver€Agreementó óóóˆŠ ,"l! ŠĢą  ąAppellant€Melz€notes€that€the€public€policy€of€this€state,€as€expressed€in€both€statute€and€caseŠ $D # Šlaw,€strongly€favors€the€enforcement€of€arbitration€agreements.€€See€the€Uniform€Arbitration€Act,Š š$0!$ ŠTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29„5„301,€et€seq.,€and€ņņBuraczynski€v.€Eyringóó,€919€S.W.2d€314€(Tenn.€1995).€€HeŠ Ü%"% Šcontends€that€the€Waiver€Agreement€incorporates€the€Development€Agreement€by€implication,€andŠ Č&#& Šthus€that€all€the€claims€arising€from€the€Waiver€Agreement€can€and€should€be€settled€in€accordanceŠ “'ō#' Šwith€the€arbitration€clause€of€the€Development€Agreement.Š  (ą$( ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€determined€to€the€contrary€that€claims€related€to€the€Waiver€Agreement€didŠ x*ø&* Šā ānot€have€to€be€settled€by€arbitration,€because€that€Agreement€did€not€contain€its€own€arbitrationŠ d+¤'+ Šclause.€€It€appears€to€us,€however,€that€the€arbitration€statute€itself€furnishes€a€stronger€reason€forŠ Ą Šdeclining€to€order€arbitration€of€those€claims.€€Š ¬ģ Šā āĢą  ąTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29-5-302€reads€in€pertinent€part,€Š „Ä Š€Ģą8  ąą ` ą(a)€€A€written€agreement€to€submit€any€existing€controversy€to€arbitration€orŠ \œ Ša€provision€in€a€written€contract€to€submit€to€arbitration€any€controversy€thereafterŠ H ˆ Šarising€between€the€parties€is€valid,€enforceable€and€irrevocable€save€upon€suchŠ 4 t Šgrounds€as€exist€at€law€or€in€equity€for€the€revocation€of€any€contract€.€.€.€.€€€Š `Š Š  Š€Ģą  ąFraud€has€long€been€a€recognized€ground€for€contract€recission€or€revocation.€ņņ€Garrett€v.Š ų 8  ŠMazda€Motors€of€Americaóó,€844€S.W.2d€178€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€ņņVance€v.€Schulderóó,€547€S.W.2dŠ ä $  Š927€(Tenn.€1977);€ņņStaggs€v.€Herff€Motor€Coóó.,€390€S.W.2d€245€(Tenn.€1965);€ņņMetropolitan€LifeŠ Š  ŠInsurance€Co.€v.€Hedgepathóó,€185€S.W.2d€906€(Tenn.€1945);€ņņSamuel€v.€King,óó€14€S.W.2d€963€(Tenn.Š ¼ü  Š1929).Š Øč  ŠĢą  ąFurther,€our€courts€have€declared€that€claims€of€fraud€in€the€inducement€are€not€subject€toŠ €Ą Šarbitration.€€This€court€held€that€when€a€contract€has€been€procured€through€fraud,€then€š šunless€theŠ l¬ Šdefrauded€party€elects€to€affirm€it,€there€is€absolutely€no€contract,€nothing€to€be€arbitrated.šš€ņņ€City€ofŠ X˜ ŠBlaine€v.€John€Coleman€Hayes€&€Associatesóó,€Inc.,€818€S.W.2d€33,€38€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€OurŠ D„ ŠSupreme€Court€more€broadly€stated€that€š šTennessee€law€does€not€allow€arbitration€of€contractŠ 0p Šformation€issues.šš€ņņ€Frizzell€Construction€Co.€v.€Gatlinburg€LLCóó,€9€S.W.3d€79,€85€(Tenn.€1999).Š \ ŠAppellant€argues€that€a€plaintiff€should€only€be€allowed€to€avoid€arbitration€on€the€basis€of€fraud€inŠ H Šthe€inducement€where€the€alleged€fraud€induced€the€execution€of€the€arbitration€clause€itself,€ratherŠ ō4 Šthan€other€clauses€in€the€contract.€€But€in€ņņCity€of€Blaineóó,€supra,€we€rejected€such€a€narrowŠ ą  Šconstruction€of€the€fraud€exception.€€€Š Ģ  ŠĢą@­­ģąņ ņIV.€€ņņPersonal€Liabilityó óóóˆŠ ¤ä ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€ruled€that€arbitration€was€not€an€appropriate€vehicle€for€settling€the€plaintiffššsŠ |¼ Šclaims€against€Joseph€Melz€personally,€because€he€was€not€a€party€to€the€contracts€at€issue.€€TheŠ hØ Šappellant€argues€that€the€courtššs€ruling€creates€an€escape€hatch€whereby€any€plaintiff€can€avoidŠ T ” Šarbitration€by€simply€joining€unrelated€individuals€to€its€complaint€as€defendants.€€We€do€not€agree,Š @!€  Šbecause€the€allegations€of€the€complaint€clearly€indicate€that€Mr.€Melz€is€a€necessary€party€to€aŠ ,"l! Šcomplete€resolution€of€this€dispute.Š #X" Š€€€€€Š $D # Šą  ąA€party€cannot€be€compelled€to€arbitrate€in€the€absence€of€a€contractual€obligation.€ņņ€FrizzellŠ š$0!$ ŠConstruction€Co.€v.€Gatlinburg€LLCóó,€9€S.W.3d€79,€84€(Tenn.€1999);€ņņAspero€v.€Shearson€AmericanŠ Ü%"% ŠExpress,€Inc.,óó€768€F.2d€106€(6ņņthóó€Circuit€1985).€€The€contracts€in€the€record€do€not€indicate€that€RiverŠ Č&#& ŠLinks€ever€agreed€to€arbitrate€disputes€with€Mr.€Melz€for€actions€undertaken€in€his€personal€capacity.€Š “'ō#' ŠRiver€Links€has€alleged€that€Mr.€Melz€used€his€position€to€convey€property€away€from€Deer€CreekŠ  (ą$( ŠConstruction,€Inc.,€and€to€himself,€and€that€he€pocketed€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€that€property.€€TheŠ Œ)Ģ%) Šdisputed€property€appears€to€have€been€the€prime€asset€of€Deer€Creek€Construction.€If€the€plaintiffššsŠ x*ø&* Šallegations€are€true,€then€it€is€uncertain€whether€any€judgment€against€Deer€Creek€alone,€whetherŠ d+¤'+ Šresulting€from€arbitration€or€not,€can€be€satisfied€from€the€remaining€assets€of€the€company.€€Š P,(, Š€Ģą  ąIt€thus€appears€to€us€that€the€trial€court€achieved€the€right€balance€between€equitableŠ ¬ģ Šconsiderations€and€the€requirements€of€the€Uniform€Arbitration€Act€by€ruling€that€the€claims€againstŠ ˜Ų ŠJoseph€Melz€individually€could€proceed€to€trial,€but€that€š š[t]o€the€extent€those€claims€can€beŠ „Ä Šconstrued€to€state€a€claim€for€relief€against€Defendants€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests,€LLC€or€Deer€CreekŠ p° ŠConstruction,€Inc.,€those€claims€are€stayed€and€referred€to€arbitration.ššŠ \œ ŠĢą@ā ā ģąņ ņV.€€ņņDissolution€and€Declaratory€Judgmentó óóóˆŠ 4 t ŠĢą  ąSince€River€Links€and€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests€are€both€limited€liability€companies,€theyŠ  L  Šare€subject€to€the€formal€requirements€of€the€Tennessee€Limited€Liability€Company€Act,€Tenn.€CodeŠ ų 8  ŠAnn.€šš€48„201„101,€et€seq.€[Acts€1994,€ch.€868].€€In€April€of€2001,€the€Tennessee€Secretary€of€StateŠ ä $  Šissued€separate€notices€to€River€Links,€LLC€and€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests,€LLC,€that€because€ofŠ Š  Šfailure€to€file€annual€reports,€there€existed€grounds€for€administrative€dissolution€of€both€companies,Š ¼ü  Šand€that€if€they€did€not€file€the€required€reports€by€July€16,€2001,€they€would€be€dissolved.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.Š Øč  ŠCode€Ann.€šš€48„245„101.€€Mr.€Melz€received€the€notices€as€the€registered€agent€for€service€ofŠ ”Ō  Šprocess€for€both€companies,€but€allegedly€failed€to€inform€the€other€members€of€River€Links€aboutŠ €Ą Šthe€notice.€€However,€River€Links€did€file€its€annual€report€before€the€deadline,€and€thus€avoidedŠ l¬ Šdissolution€at€that€time.Š X˜ ŠĢą  ąBut€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests,€LLC€did€not€file€its€annual€report,€and€was€notified€on€JuneŠ 0p Š20,€2001€that€it€had€been€administratively€dissolved.€€The€dissolution€terminated€the€membershipŠ \ Šand€governance€rights€of€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests€in€River€Links€by€operation€of€law.€€ņņSee€óóTenn.Š H ŠCode€Ann.€šš€48„216„101.€€It€also€triggered€other€consequences€arising€from€the€May€2000€OperatingŠ ō4 ŠAgreement.Š ą  ŠĢą  ąThe€Agreement€specified€that€certain€events€would€trigger€the€dissolution€of€River€Links€andŠ øų Šthe€winding€up€of€its€affairs.€€Section€13.1(d)€of€the€Agreement€lists€some€of€those€events:€Š ¤ä ŠŅ°ŅҰŅĢą ` ąš šupon€the€death,€withdrawal,€bankruptcy,€or€dissolution€of€a€Member€or€theŠ |¼ Šoccurrence€of€any€other€event€that€terminates€the€continued€membership€of€a€MemberŠ hØ Šin€the€Company€unless€within€ninety€(90)€days€after€the€disassociation€of€membershipŠ T ” Šas€so€provided€in€subparagraph€(d),€a€majority€of€the€remaining€Members€consent€toŠ @!€  Šcontinue€the€business€of€the€Company€and€to€the€admission€of€one€or€more€MembersŠ ,"l! Šas€necessary.šš€€Š #X" ŠĢҰŅŅ°Ņą  ąThus,€according€to€the€terms€of€the€Operating€Agreement,€River€Links,€LLC€wasŠ š$0!$ Šautomatically€dissolved€upon€the€administrative€dissolution€of€one€of€its€members,€Deer€Creek€GolfŠ Ü%"% ŠInterests,€LLC€€Despite€this,€River€Links€continued€to€operate.€€According€to€River€Linksšš€attorney,Š Č&#& Šit€hired€and€fired€employees,€formed€contracts€with€vendors,€and€resolved€a€dispute€with€theŠ “'ō#' ŠTennessee€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation.Š  (ą$( ŠĢą  ąShortly€after€receiving€notice€of€the€administrative€dissolution€of€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests,Š x*ø&* Šā āthe€remaining€members€of€River€Links€consented€in€writing€to€the€continuation€of€their€business.Š d+¤'+ ŠThey€subsequently€voted€to€amend€the€Operating€Agreement,€to€remove€Mr.€Melz€from€his€positionŠ Ą Šon€the€Board€of€Managers,€and€to€redeem€the€18%€financial€interest€of€Deer€Creek€in€River€Links.Š ¬ģ Šā āĢą  ąMr.€Melz€subsequently€applied€to€the€Secretary€of€State€for€the€reinstatement€of€Deer€CreekŠ „Ä ŠGolf€Interests,€LLC€€His€company€was€administratively€reinstated€on€August€23,€2001.€Tenn.€CodeŠ p° ŠAnn.€šš€48„245„303(c)€states€that€reinstatement€š šrelates€back€to€and€takes€effect€as€of€the€effectiveŠ \œ Šdate€of€the€administrative€dissolution€and€the€LLC€resumes€carrying€on€its€business€as€if€theŠ H ˆ Šadministrative€dissolution€had€never€occurred.šš€€Mr.€Melz€contends€that€the€reinstatement€isŠ 4 t Šretroactive€for€all€purposes,€that€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests€remains€a€Member€of€€River€Links€withŠ  ` Šfull€governance€rights,€and€that€the€amendment€to€the€Operating€Agreement€is€ineffective,€as€is€theŠ  L  Šredemption€of€his€€financial€rights.€€He€also€demands€to€be€reinstated€to€the€board€of€the€company.Š ų 8  ŠĢą  ąIn€its€complaint,€River€Links€asked€for€a€declaratory€judgment€as€to€the€rights€of€the€partiesŠ Š  Šin€regard€to€the€actions€undertaken€after€its€dissolution.€€Mr.€Melz€argues€that€he€is€entitled€toŠ ¼ü  Šarbitration€of€the€question.€€The€trial€court€rightly€observed€that€this€was€a€question€of€firstŠ Øč  Šimpression,€and€ruled€that€as€a€matter€of€judicial€economy,€it€was€preferable€to€settle€the€matter€inŠ ”Ō  Šthe€courts.€€We€agree.Š €Ą ŠĢą  ąThe€purpose€of€arbitration€is€to€furnish€a€speedy€and€inexpensive€alternative€to€litigation.Š X˜ ŠņņBuraczynski€v.€Eyring,óó€919€S.W.2d€314€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€a€situation€like€the€one€before€us,€whereŠ D„ Šonly€a€few€of€the€issues€between€the€parties€are€subject€to€arbitration,€a€comprehensive€resolutionŠ 0p Šof€the€dispute€cannot€be€obtained€through€an€arbitration€proceeding.€€€Further,€it€appears€to€us€thatŠ \ Šarbitrators€have€a€duty€to€grant€the€parties€the€relief€they€are€entitled€to€under€the€facts€and€under€theŠ H Šlaw,€even€though€for€purposes€of€finality,€an€arbitration€award€is€not€reversible€for€a€mere€mistakeŠ ō4 Šof€fact€or€law.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29-5-313(a)(5);€ņņArnold€v.€Morgan€Keegan€&€Co.,€Inc.óó,€914Š ą  ŠS.W.2d€445€(Tenn.€1996).€€€€Š Ģ  ŠĢą  ąThe€Tennessee€Limited€Liability€Company€Act€has€only€been€in€effect€since€1994.€€There€isŠ ¤ä Švery€little€case€law€dealing€with€the€Act,€and€none€we€could€find€that€involves€the€retroactive€effectsŠ Š Šflowing€from€the€reinstatement€of€a€company€after€its€dissolution.€€An€arbitrator€dealing€with€theŠ |¼ Šcomplex€facts€of€this€case€would€have€no€guidance€on€the€proper€interpretation€of€the€LimitedŠ hØ ŠLiability€Company€Act,€and€would€have€to€expend€a€great€deal€of€time€and€energy€to€reach€a€well„Š T ” Šconsidered€conclusion,€but€his€ultimate€decision€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€It€thus€appearsŠ @!€  Šreasonable€to€us€for€the€trial€court€to€retain€jurisdiction€of€the€declaratory€judgment€issue,€and€weŠ ,"l! Šreject€Mr.€Melzšš€claim€that€he€is€entitled€to€have€it€arbitrated.€€Š #X" ŠĢ€ą@dd)ģąņ ņVI.ó óˆŠ š$0!$ ŠĢą  ąThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€WilliamsonŠ Ģ& #& ŠCounty€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€theŠ ø'ų#' Šappellants,€Joseph€Melz,€Deer€Creek€Construction,€Inc.,€and€Deer€Creek€Golf€Interests,€LLC.Ō#†¼K»XX ‘z #ŌŌ€X ‘X»¼KŌŠ ¤(ä$( ŠĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ą_________________________________________€Š T,”(, Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.