WPC Bvjd^]_o^f̫^X.Á;}XFy71zt[GI:spfө@j0QJ;-h/*b (sa)%ն$C?> -(5\P7QJs=[D?ǶV0QfMo_-j֨P_{m03vsfKY}馷nAE DxSԚن2^ȁU .l5"/liz1נN #o 5zZY NlckV;܆]v+/B$0Br -2Js钗hXt~ 8\w8<> l{ _<\#Ud tAq}ANܪO.x(yQ[ V.63?gxM 虉 ?mݓD4㉝WJ槳b#\ %% ^ + 07 U!N w 4 z%  q  m 0D   i/UNNCEUNEQSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K ASP 0i 0D  AQ\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0gp1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular6h001s02 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|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular  R$      1    _Rule10oftheTennesseeCourtofAppealsprovides:  8  ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodify 2 theactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhaveno C precedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated  "MEMORANDUMOPINION",shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany u reasoninanyunrelatedcase.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  COA P.J. W.S.HighersParrish t]hearbitrabilityRaintree- -(|G2$ !.8add8         0   d(|3$ !.8add8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8add8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8add8     _  a8WXXdd8  @ taINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#at #Ԉ #   October11,2004Session F XWXa #aXXW#ROSECONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY,INC.v.RAINTREE ? DEVELOPMENTCOMPANY,LLCXWXa   P @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.1101621WalterL.Evans,Chancellor  4 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200301845COAR3CVFiledNovember16,2004   AV) ` dE<` A      XXXXWThisisthesecondappealofthiscase.InJune1999,anarbitrationpaneldeterminedRose }  Constructionwasentitledtodamagesunderthepartiescontract.Thetrialcourtvacatedthe f arbitrationaward.Onappeal,thisCourtreversedandconfirmedthearbitrationawardinitsentirety. O TheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedRaintreeDevelopmentsapplicationforpermissiontoappeal, 8 issuedamandate,andremandedthecasetothetrialcourtforentryofjudgment.Thetrialcourt !q enteredjudgmentforRoseConstructionasorderedbythisCourt.RaintreeDevelopmentagain  Z appeals.Weaffirm.WealsoholdthisappealfrivolousandawardRoseConstructiondamagesfor C afrivolousappeal. , #XWXXX##aXXW#XWXa Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and  Remanded     #aXWy#XWX.aDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., k AlanandE.Highers,J.,joined. T LarryE.ParrishandRobertP.Campbell,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Raintree & v DevelopmentCompany,LLC. !_  J.HoustonGordonandMichaelI.Less,Covington,Tennessee,fortheappellee,RoseConstruction "1" Company,Inc. ## 8  #aXXWg #  XWXaXXXXW  MEMORANDUMOPINION   #  1       % %    Thisisthesecondappealofthisprotractedarbitrationcase.Thefactualbackgroundgiving   risetothisappealisaddressedinRoseConstructionCo.v.RaintreeDevelopmentCo.,No.W2000  01388COAR3CV,2001WL1683746(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.31,2001)perm.app.denied(Tenn.  Oct.7,2002),anddoesnotneedtobereiteratedhere.InJune1999,anarbitrationpanelexpressly k determinedRaintreeDevelopmentCompany( Raintree)hadactedinbadfaith.RoseConstr.,2001 T WL168746,at*5.ItfurtherdeterminedthatRoseConstructionCompany,Inc.( Rose)was =  entitledtoanetawardof$974,000,plusinterest.#XWXXX #XXXXWԀId.#XWXXX#XXXXWԀat*2. & v   InMarch2000,thetrialcourtvacatedtheentirearbitrationaward.#XWXXX,#XXXXWԀId.#XWXXX#XXXXWԀInitsmemorandum,  H thetrialcourtstated [t]heawardofattorneyfeesunderthePromptPayActbythearbitrators  1  constitutedmorethanamereerrorinconstruingtheprevailinglaw,butwasacompletefailureto    applythelaworthecontract.#XWXXX,#XXXXWԀId.#XWXXX#XXXXWԀRoseappealedandinDecember2001,thisCourtreversed.This   Courtheld, [t]hearbitrationawardmustbeconfirmedinitsentirety,andthecauseisremandedfor   thispurpose.#XWXXX#XXXXWId.#XWXXX#XXXXWԀat*6.WedeniedRaintreespetitiontorehearinJanuary2002.InOctober2002,   theTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedRaintreesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.Italsodenied n  RaintreesmotiontostaythemandatetopermitappealtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.The W  TennesseeSupremeCourtissueditsmandateinNovember2002,remittingthecausetothetrial @ courtandsignifyingtheendofthecase. )y   RosemovedforentryofthejudgmentinNovember2002.InDecember2002,Raintreefiled K forbankruptcy.ThebankruptcystaywasliftedinNovember2003.OnMay15,2003,thetrialcourt 4 enteredjudgmentforRoseinconformancewiththeorderofthisCourtandthemandateofthe  supremecourt.Raintreefiledamotiontoalteroramend,whichthetrialcourtdeniedinJune2003.  RaintreefiledatimelynoticeofappealtothisCourt.Rosefiledamotiontodismisstheappeal,  whichwedenied.Rosenowseeksdismissalandsanctionsforafrivolousappeal.   0  Raintreenowpresentsthefollowingissues,aswerestatethem,forreviewbythisCourt:Z(#(# 8      8  (1)0`   Whetherthetrialcourterredinnotvacatingthearbitrationawardbecausethe ,| issuesindisputewerenotsubjecttoarbitration.e` `  8  (2)0`   IsRaintreeentitled,asamatterofright,toadjudicationofquestions  7 pertainingtoarbitrability?!  ` `  8  (3)0`   IsRaintreeentitledtoadjudicationofitscounterclaims?#"` `    Roseraisesthefollowingadditionalissues: t% $ 8  (1)0`   Whetherthismatterwasendedbythefinaldecisionandmandateofthe F'"& supremecourt./(#'` `  8  (2)0`   WhetherRaintreehasexhaustedorwaivedfurtherappeals.*Q%)` `  8  (3)0`   Whetherthisappealisfrivolousandispartofapatternofabuseanddelay.+#'+` `  Ї  WeagreewithRosethatthismatterendedwiththeTennesseeSupremeCourtsdenialof  Raintreesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.ThisCourtconfirmedthearbitrationaward inits  entirety,thesupremecourtdeniedRaintreesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal,andthere  remainednothingtolitigate.Weaccordinglyaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. k   Wenextturntowhetherthisappealisfrivolous.Whenitappearstoanyreviewingcourtthat =  theappealfromanycourtofrecordwasfrivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thecourtmay,either & v uponmotionofapartyoronitsownmotion,awardjustdamagesagainsttheappellant,whichmay  _ include,butneednotbelimitedto,costs,interestonthejudgment,andexpensesincurredbythe  H appelleeasaresultoftheappeal.Tenn.CodeAnn.27-1-122(2000).Courtsconstruethissection  1  oftheCodestrictlyinaneffortnottodiscouragelegitimateappeals.Davisv.GulfIns.Group,546    S.W.2d583,586(Tenn.1977).Afrivolousappealisone"devoidofmerit"andwhichcannot   reasonablysucceed.Id.Itisonecompletely"lackinginjusticiableissues."#XWXXXj#XXXXWԀId.   #XWXXX##XXXXW  WeagreewithRosethatthisisafrivolousappeal.ThisCourtsopinionofDecember2001 n  unambiguouslyconfirmedthearbitrationawardinitsentirety.Thisholdingwasimplicitlyaffirmed W  bytheTennesseeSupremeCourtwhenitdeniedRaintreesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal. @ Uponissuanceofthesupremecourtsmandateandremandtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthe )y arbitrationaward,thereremainednothingtolitigate.WeaccordinglyawardRosedamagesfora b frivolousappealpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated271122.WeawardRosedamagesin K theamountequaltoexpensesandreasonableattorneysfeesincurredbythisappeal.Weremand 4 tothetrialcourtfordeterminationofsuchdamages.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,  RaintreeDevelopmentCompany,LLC,anditssurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XWXXX#$#     `     h     ___________________________________ Z    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE