ÿWPC©+ L# 8UNC %‘ 0 4— 0³Ëb~w@†4ÆÚ 0Dé- 15 1m 0c/ 0D’ D/ÖN B ^ $ 0 m2 0JI D3“ 0TÆ 0^ AQx ÆÉ 0D 0@Ó 0h 0r{ 0|í Bi †† 0†  0’ 1u" 0d—U>ûB)9DCb AM¥U*òFçbèIN1L‚ËM 0Pk 0P» 0P 0P[ 0P« 0Pû 0PK! 0P›! 1‡ë!ær"v~X$vÓÖ%˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó(c(2–Õ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XîÎX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ËDÌÍDÎÏDÐteÑÒÓ€ÜÝê‚_#3|xß(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)#.e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³»$´´Ô2.eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd†¢Ì$ˆ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(((('ÿÿdxd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"#Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô drogers v. watts - opinion Î  ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$%&*+ ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d55557Border 1dd!#6Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€8XÔÌÌJuly€1,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Rogersððs€letter€stated€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€settlement€moneys€are€to€be€wire€transferred€into€myÏtrust€account€around€the€first€of€next€week€and€I€will€let€you€know€when€we€can€complete€theÏsettlement.ððÌ ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Rogers€also€filed€a€motion€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Sumner€County€seeking€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€11€sanctions€against€Mr.€Watts€and€his€lawyer€for€the€filing€of€the€third„party€complaint.€ÏThis€motion€was€eventually€denied€on€April€27,€1995.Ì DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Resolution€of€April€27,€1995,€House€Res.€No.€30,€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€1353.Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Resolution€of€May€4,€1995,€Senate€Res.€No.€13,€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€1207.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€order€amending€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€in€1993€specifiedÏthat€the€amended€version€of€the€rule€ð ðshall€govern€all€proceedings€in€civil€cases€thereafterÏcommenced€and,€insofar€as€just€and€practicable,€all€proceedings€in€civil€cases€then€pending.ðð€òòSeeóóÏòòÔ_ÔEspinozaÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€52€F.3d€838,€840€(10th€Cir.€1995).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€requirement€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„3„404€that€both€legislative€chambers€approve€Ïproposed€rules€may,€as€a€practical€matter,€indirectly€influence€the€scope€of€the€Courtððs€rule„makingÏauthority.€€The€Court€could€be€hesitant€to€adopt€rules€that€will€not€meet€with€legislative€approval.Ì8 ÿÿ6No Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent2Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent3Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent4Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent5Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent6Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent7Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô8 ÿÿ6No Indent8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô@ABCDEFG@ÿÿEGOW_gowNo Indent1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€4XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Watts€conceded€in€the€second€malicious€prosecution€proceeding€that€he€did€not€appealÏfrom€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€the€directed€verdict€dismissing€his€claims€against€Ms.ÏRogers€for€fraud€or€fraudulent€misrepresentation.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€4ÔÔ€4¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ „ ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€Fͼ¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќԀ4„Ôò ò›Þ ÞÌÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÔ€4¼ÔÌÌHELEN€S.€ROGERS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94C„3689ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€796A1-j|äþõ` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9603„CV„00120ÌTHOMAS€E.€WATTS,€JR.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àFOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendant/Appellantóó:ÌÌHelen€Sfikas€Rogersà àà àà àà àà àThomas€E.€Watts,€Jr.ÌJones€&€Rogersà àà àà àà àà àà àPro€SeÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€4„Ôò òà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÔ€4¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇÔ€4„Ôò òòòÑ  Ñà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÓ€ÓÔ€4¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€another€chapter€in€a€Ô_Ôlingering,Ô_Ô€acrimonious€disputeÏbetween€two€Nashville€lawyers€stemming€from€a€failed€settlement€of€a€case€inÏfederal€court.€€After€one€of€the€lawyers€abandoned€his€third„party€complaintÏagainst€the€other€lawyer€for€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€the€other€lawyer€filedÏa€malicious€prosecution€action€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County.€€WhenÏthe€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€on€the€ground€that€it€was€premature,€theÏprevailing€lawyer€sought€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€sanctions€against€the€lawyer€whoseÏmalicious€prosecution€claim€had€been€dismissed.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€grantÏsanctions,€and€the€lawyer€seeking€sanctions€has€appealed.€€We€have€determinedÏthat€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€award€sanctions€and,Ïtherefore,€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àIn€mid„1992,€Sharon€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€obtained€a€default€judgment€forÏapproximately€$10,000€against€Jim€and€Rose€Ô_ÔWinfreeÔ_Ô.€€On€the€afternoon€ofÏSeptember€17,€1992,€she€arrived€at€the€Ô_ÔWinfreesÔ_Ôðð€home€with€a€moving€van€and€aÏdeputy€sheriff€armed€with€an€execution€authorizing€the€seizure€of€the€Ô_ÔWinfreesÔ_ÔððÏpersonal€property€to€satisfy€her€judgment.€€Faced€with€immediate€loss€of€theirÏfurniture€and€other€possessions,€the€Ô_ÔWinfreesÔ_Ô€made€a€hurried€telephone€call€toÏtheir€lawyer,€Thomas€E.€Watts,€Jr.ÌÌà àAt€that€time,€Mr.€Watts€was€also€representing€a€corporation€in€which€Mr.ÏÔ_ÔWinfreeÔ_Ô€had€an€interest€in€a€proceeding€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€theÏMiddle€District€of€Tennessee.€€One€of€the€parties€in€the€federal€proceeding€wasÏrepresented€by€Helen€S.€Rogers,€a€lawyer€who€had€once€practiced€with€Mr.€WattsÍuntil€their€association€was€dissolved€over€a€financial€dispute.€€On€the€day€beforeÏMs.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€arrived€at€the€Ô_ÔWinfreeÔ_Ôsðð€home,€Mr.€Watts€received€a€letter€fromÏMs.€Rogers€confirming€the€terms€of€a€settlement€of€the€litigation€and€indicatingÏthat€she€would€shortly€have€the€funds€for€the€settlement€in€hand.× ƒ: ××  ×€€Mr.€WattsÏanticipated€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔWinfreeÔ_Ôððs€share€of€this€settlement€would€be€sufficient€to€payÏMs.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ôððs€judgment.ÌÌà àMr.€Watts€requested€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€to€forego€executing€on€the€Ô_ÔWinfreesÔ_ÔððÏproperty€and€promised€her€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔWinfreeÔ_Ô€would€use€the€expected€federalÏsettlement€proceeds€to€pay€her€judgment.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€referred€Mr.€Watts€toÏher€lawyer.€€Mr.€Watts€was€unable€to€reach€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ôððs€lawyer€by€telephoneÏbut€talked€with€one€of€his€associates.€€After€receiving€Mr.€Wattsððs€assurance€thatÏhe€would€receive€the€settlement€proceeds€within€five€days,€the€lawyer€telephonedÏMs.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€and€advised€her€not€to€execute€on€the€Ô_ÔWinfreesÔ_Ôðð€property€becauseÏð ðmoney€is€better€than€furniture.ðð€€Based€on€this€advice,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€authorizedÏthe€lawyer€to€release€the€execution.€€Unbeknownst€to€Mr.€Watts,€Mr.€Ô_ÔWinfreeÔ_ÔÏlater€sought€to€exempt€$7,350€of€his€personal€property€from€execution.€€ÌÌà àWhen€Mr.€Watts€did€not€receive€the€settlement€proceeds€as€he€expected,€heÏwrote€a€pointed€letter€to€Ms.€Rogers€on€September€22,€1992€stating€that€he€wouldÏdisavow€the€settlement€unless€the€funds€were€delivered€to€him€by€the€next€day.€ÏAfter€he€did€not€receive€the€funds,€Mr.€Watts€wrote€another€letter€to€Ms.€RogersÏstating€that€ð ðI€do€not€believe€the€creditor€[Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô]€has€any€claim€against€meÏpersonally,€but€in€the€unlikely€and€unfortunate€event€that€I€am€sued,€of€course,€IÏwill€have€no€option€other€than€to€pass€the€responsibility€on€to€you,€andÍpresumably,€you€would€want€to€pass€it€on€to€your€clients.ðð€€Ms.€Rogers€respondedÏby€asserting€that€she€had€never€given€Mr.€Watts€a€definite€payment€date.€€ÌÌà àOn€October€23,€1992,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€sued€Mr.€Watts€for€negligentÏmisrepresentation€in€the€Sumner€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€The€generalÏsessions€court€awarded€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€a€judgment€against€Mr.€Watts,€and€Mr.ÏWatts€pursued€a€de€novo€appeal€to€the€circuit€court.€€Once€the€case€reached€theÏcircuit€court,€Mr.€Watts€filed€a€third„party€complaint€against€Ms.€Rogers,Ïalleging€fraud€and€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€At€the€close€of€his€proof€atÏtrial,€Mr.€Watts€essentially€abandoned€his€fraud€claims€and€sought€permission€atÏtrial€to€amend€his€third„party€complaint€to€add€a€negligent€misrepresentationÏclaim€and€to€conform€his€pleadings€to€the€proof.€€The€trial€court€declined€toÏpermit€Mr.€Watts€to€amend€his€third„party€complaint€and€granted€a€directedÏverdict€dismissing€Mr.€Wattsððs€fraud€and€fraudulent€misrepresentation€claimsÏagainst€Ms.€Rogers.€€The€circuit€court€thereafter€awarded€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€a€$7,550Ïjudgment€against€Mr.€Watts.ÌÌà àA€panel€of€this€court€reversed€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ôððs€judgment€against€Mr.€WattsÏon€October€28,€1994.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€v.€Wattsóó,€895€S.W.2d€687€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1994).€€On€November€14,€1994,€Ms.€Rogers€filed€a€malicious€prosecution€actionÏagainst€Mr.€Watts€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County€based€on€his€third„party€complaint€that€had€been€dismissed€in€the€Sumner€County€proceeding.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Mr.ÏWatts€moved€for€a€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€that€Ms.€Rogersððs€complaintÏwas€premature.€€After€the€trial€court€dismissed€Ms.€Rogers€complaint,€Mr.€WattsÏrequested€sanctions€against€Ms.€Rogers€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€On€July€24,Í1995,€the€trial€court€denied€Mr.€Wattsððs€motion€for€sanctions.€€This€appealÏfollowed.ÌÌà àOn€March€6,€1995,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_ÔððsÏapplication€to€review€this€courtððs€opinion€vacating€her€judgment€against€Mr.ÏWatts.€€On€June€9,€1995,€Ms.€Rogers€filed€a€second€malicious€prosecution€actionÏagainst€Mr.€Watts€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County.€€Following€a€benchÏtrial,€the€trial€court€awarded€Ms.€Rogers€an€$18,000€judgment€against€Mr.€Watts.€ÏA€divided€panel€of€this€court€affirmed€the€judgment.€€òòSee€Rogers€v.€Wattsóó,€No.Ï01A01„9611„CV„00500,€1997€WL€367477€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€2,€1997),€òòperm.Ïapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Jan.€20,€1998).ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àWe€must€first€determine€which€version€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€applies€toÏthis€proceeding€because€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€revised€the€rule€after€theÏconduct€giving€rise€to€Mr.€Wattsððs€motion€for€sanctions€occurred.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€11€tracked€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€from€1987€until€December€1,€1993€when€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€dramatically€changed€the€explicit€scope€of€Fed.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€11,€as€well€as€its€certification€requirement€and€available€sanctions.€€TheÏchange€in€the€federal€rule€was€brought€about€by€a€desire€to€curb€some€of€theÏabuses€in€Rule€11€motion€practice€in€federal€courts,€òòseeóó€5A€Charles€A.€Wright€&ÏArthur€R.€Miller,€òòFederal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€1331,€at€4€(Supp.€1998),€andÏby€a€desire€to€reduce€the€number€of€motions€for€sanctions€filed€in€federal€courts.€ÏòòSeeóó€2A€James€W.€Moore,€et€al.,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðððð€11.01[8],€11.02[1.„2]Ï(2d€ed.€1995).€€€€ÌÌà àEven€though€Tennesseeððs€courts€had€not€experienced€dramatic€increases€inÏthe€filing€of€motions€seeking€Rule€11€sanctions€or€widespread€abuse€of€theseÏmotions,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€filed€an€order€on€February€1,€1995Ïconforming€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€with€the€1993€version€of€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€ItsÏreason€for€amending€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€was€to€prevent€the€potential€for€abuse€ofÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€sanctions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€advisory€Ô_ÔcommððnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcmtÔ_Ô.€toÏ1995€amendment.€€The€Court€submitted€the€proposed€rule€to€the€GeneralÏAssembly€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„3„404€(1994).€€The€House€ofÏRepresentatives€approved€the€rule€on€April€27,€1995,× ƒ< ××  ×€and€the€Senate€followedÏsuit€on€May€4,€1995.× ƒ= ××  ×€€By€its€own€terms,€the€amended€rule€took€effect€on€July€1,Ï1995.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€unlike€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,Ïprovided€no€direction€concerning€the€application€of€the€amended€version€of€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€11€to€pending€civil€cases.× ƒ> ××  ×€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€all€orÏany€portion€of€the€1995€version€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€applies€to€conductÏoccurring€before€July€1,€1995.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏthemselves€do€not€provide€an€answer€to€this€question;€accordingly,€we€must€lookÏelsewhere.ÌÌà àThe€only€statute€purporting€to€limit€the€scope€of€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourtððs€rulemaking€authority€is€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„3„403€(1994)€which€statesÍthat€ð ð[t]he€rules€prescribed€by€the€supreme€court€pursuant€to€ðð€16„3„402€shall€notÏabridge,€enlarge€or€modify€any€substantive€right,€and€shall€be€consistent€with€theÏconstitutions€of€the€United€States€and€the€state€of€Tennessee.ðð× ƒ? ××  ×€€This€provisionÏinvokes€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€20's€protection€against€retrospective€laws.€€Thus,Ïwe€must€determine€whether€the€1995€amendments€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€areÏsubstantive€or€procedural.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔKuykendallÔ_Ô€v.€Wheeleróó,€890€S.W.2d€785,€787Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔSaylorsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔRiggsbeeÔ_Ôóó,€544€S.W.2d€609,€610€(Tenn.€1976).€€€€If€theÏamendments€are€procedural,€then€they€may€be€applied€to€all€civil€cases€pendingÏwhen€the€amended€rule€became€effective.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔKeeÔ_Ô€v.€Shelter€Ins.€Co.óó,€852ÏS.W.2d€226,€228€(Tenn.€1993);€òòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.óó,Ï902€S.W.2d€946,€956€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àProcedural€statutes€are€ones€that€affect€the€method€or€procedure€forÏprosecuting€or€defending€a€claim.€€òòSee€Shell€v.€Stateóó,€893€S.W.2d€416,€419„20Ï(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€Ô_ÔDepððtÔ_Ô€of€Human€Ô_ÔServsÔ_Ô.€v.€Ô_ÔDefrieceÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€954,€958Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€this€context,€procedure€includesÌÓÓà8 àà8 àthe€mode€or€proceeding€by€which€a€legal€right€isÏenforced,€as€distinguished€from€the€law€which€gives€orÏdefines€the€right,€and€which€by€means€of€the€proceeding,Ïthe€court€is€to€administer€ð!ð€the€machinery,€asÏdistinguished€from€its€product;.€.€.€including€pleading,Ïprocess,€evidence,€and€practice.€.€..€€Practice€[is]€theÏform€.€.€.€for€the€enforcement€of€rights€or€the€redress€ofÏwrongs,€as€distinguished€from€the€substantive€law€whichÏgives€the€right€or€denounces€the€wrong.€€òòÌÌÓ€ÓÔ_ÔSaylorsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔRiggsbeeÔ_Ôóó,€544€S.W.2d€at€610€(quoting€òòJones€v.€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ôóó,€386€P.2d€194,Ï198„99€(Ô_ÔKanÔ_Ô.€1963)).ÌÌà àThe€1995€amendments€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€contain€both€substantive€andÏprocedural€alterations.€€Substantively,€the€1995€amendments€broaden€the€scope€ofÏthe€conduct€subject€to€sanctions€and€expand€the€nature€of€the€certificationsÏimplicit€in€an€attorneyððs€or€partyððs€signature€on€pleadings,€written€motions,€orÏother€papers.€€Procedurally,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.03€changes€decisions€to€imposeÏsanctions€from€mandatory€to€discretionary€decisions.€€Similarly,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï11.03(1)(a)€provides€a€21„day€safe€harbor€provision€intended€to€reduce€theÏlikelihood€of€sanctions€by€giving€parties€an€opportunity€to€correct€or€withdrawÏchallenged€submissions,€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.03(2)€places€new€limits€on€theÏnature€of€the€sanctions€to€be€imposed.ÌÌà àWhile€we€have€no€Tennessee€precedents€regarding€the€application€ofÏamended€rules€to€conduct€occurring€before€the€amendments€became€effective,€theÏfederal€courts€have€addressed€precisely€the€same€question€with€regard€to€the€1993Ïamendments€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€With€regard€to€sanctionable€conductÏoccurring€before€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment,€the€federal€courts€haveÏnoted€that€both€remanding€the€cases€for€consideration€under€the€amended€rule€andÏreviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decision€using€the€amended€ruleððs€standards€would€beÏunjust€and€impractical.€€òòSee€Silva€v.€Ô_ÔWitschenÔ_Ôóó,€19€F.3d€725,€728„29€(1st€Cir.Ï1994).ÌÌà àBecause€the€1993€amendments€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€were€both€substantiveÏand€procedural,€the€federal€courts€have€held€that€the€key€consideration€is€whenÏthe€sanctionable€conduct€occurred,€not€when€the€motion€for€sanctions€was€filed.€ÏòòSee€Ô_ÔVanderventerÔ_Ô€v.€Wabash€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Corp.óó,€893€F.€Supp.€827,€838€(N.D.€Ind.Ï1995).€€With€regard€to€the€substantive€aspects€of€the€rule,€the€federal€courts€haveÏheld€that€the€pre„1993€version€of€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€should€apply€because€lawyersÏand€parties€should€only€be€charged€with€knowledge€of€the€version€of€the€rule€thatÍwas€in€effect€when€the€paper€giving€rise€to€the€request€for€sanctions€was€filed.€ÏòòSee€MacDraw,€Inc.€v.€CIT€Group€Equip.€Fin.,€Inc.óó,€73€F.3d€1253,€1257€(2d€Cir.Ï1996);€òòCunningham€v.€Waters€Tan€&€Co.óó,€65€F.3d€1351,€1361€(7th€Cir.€1995);ÏòòLand€v.€Chicago€Truck€Drivers€Union€€Health€and€Welfare€Fundóó,€25€F.3d€509,Ï516€(7th€Cir.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔKnipeÔ_Ô€v.€Skinneróó,€19€F.3d€72,€78€(2d€Cir.€1994).€€They€haveÏalso€held,€however,€that€district€judges€may€exercise€their€newfound€discretionÏcontained€in€the€1993€amendments€when€the€filing€giving€rise€to€the€request€forÏsanctions€preceded€the€amendments€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€òòSee€Moore€v.€LocalÏ569,€Ô_ÔIntððlÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBhÔ_Ôd.€of€Elec.€Workersóó,€53€F.3d€1054,€1058€(9th€Cir.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔKnipeÔ_Ô€v.ÏSkinneróó,€19€F.3d€at€78;€òòCorporate€Printing€Co.€v.€New€York€TypographicalÏUnion€No.€6,óó€886€F.€Supp.€340,€343€(Ô_ÔS.D.N.Y.Ô_Ô€1995);€òòÔ_ÔLaVignaÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWABCÔ_ÔÏTelevision,€Inc.óó,€159€Ô_ÔF.R.D.Ô_Ô€432,€436€(S.D.€N.Y.€1995).€ÌÌà à€The€choice€of€which€version€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€to€apply€is€notÏoutcome€determinative€in€this€case€because€the€conduct€Mr.€Watts€complains€of,€ifÏfound€to€have€been€inappropriate,€would€have€been€sanctionable€under€eitherÏversion€of€the€rule.€€For€the€purpose€of€our€analysis,€however,€we€will€determineÏwhether€Ms.€Rogers€conduct€amounts€to€a€substantive€violation€of€rule€using€theÏunamended€version€of€the€rule.€€Thus,€like€the€trial€court,€we€will€apply€theÏobjective€standard€of€reasonableness€contained€in€the€pre„July€1,€1995€version€ofÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.€€òòSee€Business€Guides,€Inc.€v.€Chromatic€CommunicationsÏEnters.,€Inc.óó,€498€U.S.€533,€551,€111€S.€Ct.€922,€933€(1991);€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,Ï812€S.W.2d€284,€288€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àMs.€Rogersððs€conduct€must€be€analyzed€in€light€of€the€circumstances€knownÏto€her€at€the€time€she€filed€her€first€malicious€prosecution€complaint.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔKrugÔ_ÔÏv.€Ô_ÔKrugÔ_Ôóó,€838€S.W.2d€197,€205€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Accordingly,€we€mustÏpursue€answers€to€the€following€two€questions:€first,€whether€Ms.€Rogers€filedÍher€first€malicious€prosecution€complaint€believing€it€to€be€ð ðwell€grounded€in€factÏand€.€.€.€warranted€by€existing€law€or€a€good€faith€argument€for€extension,Ïmodification,€or€reversal€of€existing€lawðð€and€second,€whether€Ms.€Rogers€filedÏthis€complaint€ð ðfor€any€improper€purpose€such€as€to€harass€or€to€causeÏunnecessary€delay€or€needless€increase€in€the€cost€of€litigation.ðð€€ÌÌà àThese€inquires€call€for€the€trial€courts€to€make€fact„intensive€close€calls.€ÏòòSee€Cooter€&€Ô_ÔGellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHartmarxÔ_Ô€Corp.óó,€496€U.S.€384,€404,€110€S.€Ct.€2447,€2460Ï(1990).€€Accordingly,€appellate€courts€use€the€deferential€abuse„of„discretionÏstandard€when€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€decision€with€regard€to€the€imposition€ofÏsanctions.òò€€See€Ô_ÔAlsideÔ_Ô€Supply€Ctr.€v.€Smith€Heritage€Siding€Co.óó,€No€03A01„9702„CH„00069,€1997€WL€414982,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€25,€1997)€(No€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€11€application€filed);€òòBerger€v.€Ô_ÔRatnerÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02A01„9604„CV„00077,Ï1997€WL€170327,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€11,€1997)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed);€òòÔ_ÔKrugÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKrugÔ_Ôóó,€838€S.W.2d€at€205.€€Under€this€standard€ofÏreview,€a€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€if€its€decision€is€based€on€an€erroneousÏview€of€the€law€or€a€clearly€erroneous€assessment€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Cooter€&ÏÔ_ÔGellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHartmarxÔ_Ô€Corpóó.,€496€U.S.€at€405,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2461.€€An€erroneousÏdecision€with€regard€to€the€imposition€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€sanctions€will€notÏbe€second„guessed€on€appeal€unless€it€has€caused€great€injustice€and€injury€to€theÏcomplaining€party.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔBinkleyÔ_Ô€v.€Cannonóó,€No.€01A01„9408„CH„00401,€1995ÏWL€66927,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€17,€1995)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).€ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àThe€remaining€issue€to€be€decided€is€whether€Ms.€Rogers€engaged€inÏsanctionable€conduct€when€she€filed€her€first€malicious€prosecution€claim€againstÏMr.€Watts.€€Mr.€Watts€insists€that€Ms.€Rogers€should€have€known€that€her€firstÏcomplaint€was€not€warranted€by€existing€law€because€his€third„party€claim€inÏòòÔ_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€v.€Wattsóó€had€not€been€finally€terminated€in€her€favor€at€the€time€sheÏfiled€her€complaint.€€Ms.€Rogers€responds€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€sanctions€wereÏnot€warranted€because€she€eventually€succeeded€with€her€second€maliciousÏprosecution€claim€against€Mr.€Watts.ÌÌà àThe€reasonableness€of€Ms.€Rogersððs€conduct€must€be€established€in€light€ofÏthe€circumstances€existing€when€she€filed€her€first€malicious€prosecutionÏcomplaint.€€Accordingly,€the€later€success€of€her€second€malicious€prosecutionÏcomplaint€has€no€bearing€on€our€consideration€of€whether€the€filing€of€her€firstÏcomplaint€was€sanctionable.€€As€the€law€stood€at€the€time€she€filed€her€firstÏcomplaint,€Ms.€Rogers,€like€any€other€reasonably€competent€lawyer,€should€haveÏknown€that€she€would€be€required€to€prove€(1)€that€Mr.€Watts€filed€his€third„party€complaint€in€òòÔ_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€v.€Wattsóó€without€probable€cause,€(2)€that€Mr.€WattsÏacted€with€malice€when€he€filed€his€third„party€complaint€against€her,€and€(3)€thatÏthe€final€disposition€of€Mr.€Wattsððs€third„party€complaint€was€favorable€to€her.€ÏòòSee€Roberts€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óó,€842€S.W.2d€246,€247„48€(Tenn.€1992);ÏòòChristian€v.€Ô_ÔLapidusÔ_Ôóó,€833€S.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€1992)€(both€cases€holding€thatÏthe€three€essential€elements€of€a€malicious€prosecution€claim€are€(1)€that€theÏdefendant€brought€the€prior€suit€without€probable€cause,€(2)€that€the€defendantÏbrought€the€prior€suit€with€malice,€and€(3)€that€the€prior€suit€was€terminated€inÏthe€plaintiffððs€favor).ÌÌà àThe€ð ðfavorable€terminationðð€element€of€a€malicious€prosecution€claim€canÏbe€satisfied€by€a€showing€other€than€that€the€defendantððs€underlying€claim€wasÍdismissed€as€a€result€of€a€final€judgment€on€the€merits.€€Any€dismissal€indicatingÏthe€innocence€or€Ô_ÔnonliabilityÔ_Ô€of€the€malicious€prosecution€plaintiff€will€suffice€asÏa€favorable€termination.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔSewellÔ_Ô€v.€Par€Cable,€Inc.óó,€No.€87„266„II,€1988€WLÏ112915,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€26,€1988)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòVilla€v.€Coleóó,€6€Cal.€Ô_ÔRptrÔ_Ô.€2d€644,€648€(Ct.€App.Ï1992);€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€674€Ô_ÔcmtÔ_Ô.€j€(1977);€1€Fowler€V.€Harper,Ïet€al.,€òòThe€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€4.4€(3d€ed.€1996).€€Accordingly,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€the€abandonment€or€withdrawal€of€an€allegedlyÏmalicious€claim€is€sufficient€to€establish€a€final€and€favorable€termination€as€longÏas€the€abandonment€or€withdrawal€was€not€accompanied€by€a€compromise€orÏsettlement€or€was€not€undertaken€in€order€to€Ô_ÔrefileÔ_Ô€the€same€claim€in€anotherÏforum.€€òòSee€Christian€v.€Ô_ÔLapidusÔ_Ôóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€74.€€ÌÌà àWhen€Ms.€Ô_ÔRogersÔ_Ô€filed€her€first€malicious€prosecution€claim€against€Mr.ÏWatts,€she€knew:ÌÓ(€ H@ABCDEFG @(ÓÓÓà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 à€that€Mr.€Watts€had€filed€a€third„party€complaint€against€her€inÏòòÔ_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ô€v.€Wattsóó€alleging€that€she€has€committed€fraud€orÏfraudulent€misrepresentation;ÌÌà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àthat€the€trial€court€had€denied€Mr.€Wattsððs€motion€at€the€close€of€theÏevidence€to€conform€his€third„party€complaint€to€the€proof€and€toÏamendment€his€third„party€complaint€to€add€a€claim€of€negligentÏmisrepresentation;€ÌÌà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àthat€the€trial€court€had€granted€her€motion€of€a€directed€verdictÏdismissing€Mr.€Wattsððs€third„party€complaint€with€prejudice;ÌÌà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àthat€Mr.€Watts€had€appealed€from€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ôððs€verdict€againstÏhim€and€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€amend€hisÏcomplaint€but€that€he€had€not€specifically€appealed€from€the€directedÍverdict€dismissing€his€third„party€claims€for€fraud€or€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation;× ƒI ××  ×€and€ÌÌÓ€Óà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àthat€the€Court€of€Appeals€had€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àBased€on€these€facts,€Ms.€Rogers,€or€any€other€reasonably€competentÏlawyer,€could€legitimately€have€concluded€that€Mr.€Wattsððs€claims€based€on€fraudÏand€fraudulent€misrepresentation€had€been€terminated€in€Ms.€Rogersððs€favor.€ÏMr.€Watts€had€abandoned€them€at€trial€by€filing€the€motion€to€amend,€and€theÏtrial€court€had€granted€a€directed€verdict€dismissing€them.€In€addition,€anyÏreasonably€competent€lawyer€would€have€concluded€that€the€trial€courtððs€dismissalÏof€Mr.€Wattsððs€fraud€claims€was€final€because€Mr.€Watts€had€not€taken€issue€onÏappeal€with€the€dismissal€of€these€claims.€€By€failing€to€raise€this€issue€on€appeal,ÏMr.€Watts€placed€the€issue€of€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€third„party€fraudÏclaims€beyond€the€reach€not€only€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€but€also€of€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€Thus,€it€was€of€noÏconsequence€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_Ôððs€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€had€not€beenÏdisposed€of€when€Ms.€Rogers€filed€her€first€malicious€prosecution€complaint.€€ByÏvirtue€of€his€failure€to€take€issue€in€the€Court€of€Appeals€with€the€trial€courtððsÏdirected€verdict€dismissing€his€fraud€claims,€Mr.€Watts€had€lost€his€opportunity€toÏraise€these€issues€in€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€these€facts,€Ms.€Rogers,€or€any€other€reasonably€competentÏlawyer,€could€have€concluded€that€Mr.€Wattsððs€claims€based€on€fraud€andÏfraudulent€misrepresentation€had€been€finally€concluded€in€Ms.€Rogersððs€favorÏwhen€she€filed€her€first€malicious€prosecution€action.€€This€being€the€case,€theÏtrial€court€could€have€properly€declined€to€impose€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11€sanctionsÍfor€Ms.€Rogersððs€first€malicious€prosecution€complaint€because€it€was€well„grounded€in€fact€and€supported€by€existing€law.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€dismissing€Mr.€Wattsððs€request€for€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€11€sanctions€Ô_ÔagainstÔ_Ô€Ms.€Rogers€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€forÏwhatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€toÏThomas€E.€Watts,€Jr.,€and€his€surety€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€Ô_ÔPRESÔ_ÔIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌ__________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€œJUDGE›