ÿWPCl  ÐÏPËM<á©âbôìTsŽî¾­‘è/á¬â‘(¶Ð䌋«ÙîuöÄ_)´Žf#¢ŸtbìMah»ŠJöà©rYÍ竸jÀvá)}|.«–Õ„Q_ffugUž"ÀœZ±O&oO¾. ŒÎ·¿‹Õ@Ö=õ½ù²ª^5Ú(÷Ãì‹•)6ÇOE‘.móÒ7-soÀ¬¯ô`fQUp…æuÚ.;‹wø#w”eÛÏ"sT-˜¼„{Ÿ UM}A]l+FL³Í8À'(Uþ³–WT~—ºo_(ôþá)ºÇ莧ªÏÝ€W•¹á¶Å[s%J¼;¿•÷:¯_vüêÈŒ}³ûÕ/—}h,l² CDÏCž³s~ñH!F5|ÊÔ‘ù/|è1žH˜Àó¤.Þ°ŒÖlâìÁoÁy™~À Ѝ¶ŒÈiiãÜè™ Ž Ðtrial€judge€to€recuse€himself€and€transfer€the€case€to€another€division;€and€the€dismissal€of€the€caseÐ ' w Ðfor€failure€to€pay€discretionary€costs.€Finding€no€error,€we€affirm€the€trial€court,€and€remand€for€aÐ  ` Ðdetermination€of€damages€for€this€frivolous€appeal.Ð ù I Ðò òÓ  ÓÌI.€FACTUAL€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óÐ Ì   ÐÓIÓÌà  àSarah€Nicole€Anderson,€a€nine€year€old€girl,€was€seriously€injured€in€an€automobile€accidentÐ Ÿï  Ðon€February€17,€1998,€and€died€the€next€morning€at€Le€Bonheur€Childrenððs€Medical€Center€inÐ ˆØ  ÐMemphis€(ð ðLe€Bonheurðð).€Her€mother,€Christina€Yeubanks,€brought€suit€against€a€number€of€parties,Ð qÁ  Ðincluding€three€physicians,€the€medical€group€to€which€one€of€the€physicians€belonged,€and€LeÐ Zª  ÐBonheur,€asserting€various€theories€of€liability€for€her€daughterððs€death.€Ms.€Yeubanks€voluntarilyÐ C“ Ðdismissed€several€of€her€claims,€and€the€trial€court€directed€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Le€Bonheur€as€toÐ ,| Ðthe€two€other€claims.€The€complex€history€of€this€case€may€be€found€in€our€earlier€opinion€inÐ e Ðòòò òYeubanks€v.€Methodist€Hospital€et.€al.óó,€No.€W2000„03068„COA„R3„CV€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€atÐ þN ÐJackson,€Sept.€19,€2002),€òòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.Dec.€8,€2003)€ó ó(hereinafter€ð ðòòò òYeubanks€Ió óóóðð).Ð è8 ÐHowever,€most€of€the€facts€and€issues€that€arose€in€òòò òYeubanks€I€ó óóódo€not€directly€€concern€us€in€thisÐ Ô$ Ðappeal.€Rather,€this€appeal€concerns€matters€that€arose€after€the€re„filing€of€this€lawsuit€in€DivisionÐ ¾ Ð4€of€the€Shelby€County€Circuit€Court€on€December€6,€2002.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€The€sole€issue€from€òòò òYeubanks€I€ó óóóthatÐ §÷ Ðis€pertinent€to€this€case€involves€discretionary€costs€from€the€first€trial.€òòò òóóó óAt€the€conclusion€of€that€trial,Ð ‘á Ðthe€court€ordered€Ms.€Yeubanks€to€pay€discretionary€costs€to€the€defendants,€arising€out€of€the€firstÐ zÊ Ðcase,€prior€to€refiling€the€case.€In€our€ò òòòYeubanks€Ióóó ó€opinion,€we€affirmed€the€assessment€ofÐ c³ Ðdiscretionary€costs€against€Ms.€Yeubanks,€but€held€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€requiring€her€to€payÐ M Ðsuch€costs€prior€to€refiling€the€case,€noting€that€Rule€41.04€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ 6† ÐProcedure€ð ðclearly€contemplates€that€the€determination€of€when€the€plaintiff€must€pay€costsÐ o Ðpreviously€ordered€is€made€after€the€case€is€refiled.ððÐ  X ÐÌà  àAfter€Ms.€Yeubanks€re„filed€the€case€in€Circuit€Court€Division€4,€Appellee€Hertz€moved,€onÐ Ú!*  ÐDecember€18,€2002,€to€transfer€the€case€back€to€Circuit€Court€Division€8€(where€the€case€hadÐ Ã"! Ðoriginally€been€heard).€This€motion€was€pursuant€to€Rule€4(e)€of€the€Local€Rules€for€the€ThirtiethÐ ¬#ü" ÐJudicial€District.€The€motion€was€granted.€On€April€24,€2003,€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€recusal€andÐ •$å# Ðtransfer,€and€this€motion€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€On€May€12,€2003,€the€trial€court€ordered€Ms.Ð ~%Î $ ÐYeubanks€to€pay€the€discretionary€costs€assessed€in€ò òòòYeubanks€I€óóó ówithin€thirty€days.€The€costs€wereÐ g&·!% Ðnot€paid€and€the€case€was€dismissed€on€June€16,€2003.€Ms.€Yeubanks€timely€filed€a€notice€of€appealÐ Q'¡"& Ðon€July€11,€2003.€Ð :(Š#' Ðò òÓ  ÓII.€ISSUESó óÐ ° ÐÓ] ÓÌà  àAppellant,€Ms.€Yeubanks,€presents€the€following€issues€on€appeal:Ð ƒÓ ÐÌà  àò òIssue€1:ó ó€ð ðWhether€the€trial€court,€Division€4,€erred€when€it€transferred€the€case€to€DivisionÐ U¥ Ð8,€where€four€(4)€of€the€jurors€from€the€first€trial€had€given€affidavits€stating€that€the€trial€judge€inÐ A ‘ ÐDivision€8€demonstrated€personal€bias€and€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants€during€the€trial.ððÐ * z ÐÌà  àò òIssue€2:ó ó€ð ðWhether€the€trial€court,€Division€8,€erred€when€it€failed€to€recuse€itself€and€transferÐ ü L Ðthe€case€to€another€division€where€four€(4)€of€the€jurors€from€the€first€trial€had€given€affidavitsÐ è 8  Ðstating€that€the€trial€judge€in€Division€8€demonstrated€personal€bias€and€prejudice€in€favor€of€theÐ Ñ !  Ðdefendants€during€the€trial.ððÐ º  ÐÌà  àò òIssue€3:ó ó€ð ðWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€case€for€failure€to€pay€discretionaryÐ ŒÜ  Ðcosts€after€it€refused€to€recuse€itself€and€transfer€the€case€to€another€division.ððÐ xÈ  ÐÌà  àAppellees€present€the€following€issue€for€review:Ð Jš ÐÌà  àò òIssue€4:ó ó€Whether€this€appeal€is€frivolous.Ð l Ðò òÓ  ÓÌIII.€STANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÐ òB ÐÓË%ÓÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€judgment€will€be€reviewed€òòde€novo€óóupon€the€record€with€no€presumptionÐ Å Ðof€correctness€accompanying€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);Ð ®þ Ðò òòòWaldron€v.€Delffsóó,€988€S.W.2d€182,€184€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòSims€v.€Stewartóó,€973€S.W.2d€597,Ð —ç Ð599„600€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).Ð Ñ ÐÓ  ÓÌIV.€ANALYSIS€ó óÐ U¥ ÐÓÉ'ÓÌà  àò òIssue€1:ó ó€ð ðWhether€the€trial€court,€Division€4,€erred€when€it€transferred€the€case€to€DivisionÐ (x Ð8,€where€four€(4)€of€the€jurors€from€the€first€trial€had€given€affidavits€stating€that€the€trial€judge€inÐ  d ÐDivision€8€demonstrated€personal€bias€and€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants€during€the€trial.ððÐ ý M ÐÌà  àMs.€Yeubanksðð€first€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court,€Shelby€County€Circuit€CourtÐ Ï"! ÐDivision€4,€erred€in€transferring€the€case€back€to€Shelby€County€Circuit€Court€Division€8,€where€itÐ ¸#" Ðwas€originally€heard,€upon€the€defendantsðð€motion.€The€defendants€based€their€motion€upon€LocalÐ ¡$ñ# ÐRule€4(e)€of€the€30th€Judicial€District,€which€states€as€follows:Ð Š%Ú $ ÐÌà8  àWhenever€any€case€has€been€assigned€to€or€tried€before€any€Judge€of€the€court,€andÐ \'¬"& Ðcomes€on€for€a€trial€or€retrial€as€the€result€of€a€non„suit,€mistrial,€reversal,€settingÐ E(•#' Ðaside€of€a€verdict,€or€dismissal€on€some€ground€not€going€to€the€merits,€then€suchÐ .)~$( Ðcase€shall€be€assigned€for€any€subsequent€trial€or€trials€to€the€division€of€the€courtÐ *g%) Ðpresided€over€by€the€Judge€before€whom€the€case€was€previously€pending,€unlessÐ +P&* Ðgood€cause€be€shown€to€the€contrary.Ðé+9'+Ð Ð  Їà8  àAny€attorney€who€files€or€is€counsel€in€any€cause€designated€herein€shall€inform€theÐ ° Ðclerk€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€such€filing€and€the€clerk€shall€assign€the€cause€to€theÐ ™é Ðcourt€in€which€the€prior€cause€was€filed.ЂÒÐ Ð  ÐÌMs.€Yeubanks€contends€that€the€case€should€not€have€been€transferred,€arguing€that€the€alleged€biasÐ T¤ Ðof€the€Division€8€circuit€judge€constituted€good€cause€why€the€case€should€not€have€been€transferredÐ =  Ðback€to€the€original€division€in€which€it€was€filed.€To€substantiate€her€claims€of€bias,€Ms.€YeubanksÐ & v Ðhas€collected€affidavits€from€her€trial€counsel,€T.€Robert€Hill€and€Frankie€E.€Wade,€and€from€fourÐ  _ Ðjurors€who€sat€in€the€original€trial,€stating€that€Judge€Bailey,€the€trial€judge,€displayed€bias€orÐ ø H Ðprejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants€in€the€original€trial.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àLocal€Rule€4(e)€makes€it€clear€that,€in€the€absence€of€a€showing€of€good€cause€why€the€caseÐ ³  Ðshould€not€be€assigned€to€the€division€where€the€case€was€previously€heard,€the€re„filed€case€shouldÐ œì  Ðbe€heard€by€the€same€division.€The€question€before€us,€then,€is€whether€Division€4€circuit€court€erredÐ …Õ  Ðin€failing€to€find€that€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€allegations€of€bias€and€prejudice,€supported€by€affidavits€byÐ n¾  Ðher€trial€counsel€and€four€jurors€from€the€original€trial,€constituted€good€cause€not€to€transfer€the€caseÐ W§  Ðback€to€Division€8.€Ð @ ÐÌà  àThe€decision€of€whether€recusal€is€warranted€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€judgeÐ b Ðwhose€recusal€is€sought,€with€the€exception€of€grounds€enumerated€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€6,€ð§ ð11,€orÐ ûK ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ð§ ð€17„2„101€(1994).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€In€cases€where€recusal€is€not€mandated€by€the€TennesseeÐ ä4 ÐConstitution€or€statute,€it€is€well„established€in€Tennessee€that€ð ðthe€decision€of€whether€recusal€isÐ Í Ðwarranted€must€in€the€first€instance€be€made€by€the€judge€himself€or€herself.ðð€òòò òKinard€v.€Kinardóó,€986Ð ¶ ÐS.W.2d€220,€228€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)ó ó.€Ms.€Yeubanks,€by€challenging€the€transfer€of€her€lawsuitÐ ¢ò Ðback€to€Division€8€where€it€was€originally€heard,€sought€for€the€Division€4€circuit€court€to€compelÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€recusal€of€Judge€Bailey€without€first€giving€Judge€Bailey€the€opportunity€to€recuse€himself.€WeÐ wÇ Ðbelieve€this€contravenes€the€principle€expressed€inòòò ò€Kinardó óóó,€that€a€motion€for€recusal€must€first€beÐ `° Ðdecided€by€the€judge€whose€recusal€is€sought.€If€the€judge€declines€to€recuse€himself€or€herself,€theÐ Jš Ðparty€who€seeks€recusal€may€then€challenge€this€decision€on€appeal,€and€the€decision€will€beÐ 3ƒ Ðreviewed€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€We€believe€that€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€attempt€to€short„Ð l Ðcircuit€this€process€by€having€another€division€of€the€circuit€court€force€the€recusal€of€Judge€BaileyÐ  U Ðis€improper.€We€conclude€that€the€Division€4€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€compel€suchÐ î > Ðrecusal€and€transferring€the€case€back€to€Division€8€where€it€was€previously€heard.Ð ×!'  Ðâ âÐ À"! ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àHowever,€we€note€that€even€if€itòò€were€óóappropriate€for€another€division€of€the€circuit€court€toÐ ° Ðâ âforce€Judge€Baileyððs€recusal€under€these€circumstances,€the€record€on€appeal€would€provide€anÐ ™é Ðinsufficient€basis€for€us€to€find€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€force€such€a€recusal.€On€appeal,Ð ‚Ò ÐMs.€Yeubanks€has€declined€to€file€a€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings€in€which€Judge€BaileyÐ k» Ðallegedly€demonstrated€such€marked€bias€and€prejudice.€Instead,€Ms.€Yeubanks€bases€her€allegationÐ T¤ Ðsolely€on€six€affidavitsð— ðtwo€from€her€trial€counsel,€and€four€from€jurors€who€sat€in€the€originalÐ =  Ðtrialð— ðalleging€that€Judge€Bailey€demonstrated€bias€or€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants.€TheseÐ & v Ðaffidavits,€for€reasons€that€we€will€explain€in€our€discussion€of€Issue€2,€òòinfraóó,€do€not€provideÐ  _ Ðsufficient€evidence€€upon€which€we€could€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€force€JudgeÐ ø H ÐBaileyððs€recusal.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àò òIssue€2:ó ó€ð ðWhether€the€trial€court,€Division€8,€erred€when€it€failed€to€recuse€itself€and€transferÐ ³  Ðthe€case€to€another€division€where€four€(4)€of€the€jurors€from€the€first€trial€had€given€affidavitsÐ Ÿï  Ðstating€that€the€trial€judge€in€Division€8€demonstrated€personal€bias€and€prejudice€in€favor€of€theÐ ˆØ  Ðdefendants€during€the€trial.ððÐ qÁ  ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court,€Division€8€of€the€Shelby€County€CircuitÐ C“ ÐCourt,€erred€in€failing€to€recuse€itself€and€transfer€the€case€to€another€division.€As€noted€in€ourÐ ,| Ðdiscussion€of€Issue€1,€òòsupraóó,€Ms.€Yeubanks€has€declined,€on€appeal,€to€file€a€transcript€of€the€hearingÐ e Ðin€which€Judge€Bailey€allegedly€demonstrated€bias€or€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants.€Instead,Ð þN Ðthe€sole€evidence€Ms.€Yeubanks€presents€for€this€contention€are€affidavits€by€two€of€her€trialÐ ç7 Ðcounsel,€T.€Robert€Hill€and€Frankie€Wade,€and€affidavits€by€four€jurorsð— ðJohn€David€Howard,Ð Ð  ÐWesley€Moss,€Lynne€M.€Hinton,€and€Sean€Murrinð— ðwho€sat€in€the€previous€trial€before€JudgeÐ ¹  ÐBailey.Ð ¢ò ÐÌà  àLitigants€are€entitled€to€have€their€cases€heard€by€fair€and€impartial€judges.ò ò€òòSeeóó€òòKinard€v.Ð tÄ ÐKinardóó,€986€S.W.2d€220,€227„8€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)ó ó.€The€need€to€preserve€public€confidence€inÐ `° Ðthe€judicial€system€further€requires€that€the€judge€ð ðnot€only€be€impartial€in€fact,€but€also€that€theÐ Lœ Ðjudge€be€perceived€to€be€impartial.ðð€òòò òId.€óóat€228.€€ó óAs€our€Supreme€Court€stated€in€the€case€ofòò€ò òDavisÐ 5… Ðv.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560€(Tenn.€2001)ó ó:Ð !q ÐÌà8  àGiven€the€importance€of€impartiality,€both€in€fact€and€appearance,€decisionsÐ ö F Ðconcerning€whether€recusal€is€warranted€are€addressed€to€the€judgeððs€discretion,Ð ß!/  Ðwhich€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€a€clear€abuse€appears€on€the€face€of€theÐ È"! Ðrecord.€A€motion€to€recuse€should€be€granted€if€the€judge€has€any€doubt€as€to€his€orÐ ±#" Ðher€ability€to€preside€impartially€in€the€case.€However,€because€perception€isÐ š$ê# Ðimportant,€recusal€is€also€appropriate€when€a€person€of€ordinary€prudence€in€theÐ ƒ%Ó $ Ðjudgeððs€position,€knowing€all€of€the€facts€known€to€the€judge,€would€find€aÐ l&¼!% Ðreasonable€basis€for€questioning€the€judgeððs€impartiality.€Thus,€even€when€a€judgeÐ U'¥"& Ðbelieves€that€he€or€she€can€hear€a€case€fairly€and€impartially,€the€judge€should€grantÐ >(Ž#' Ðthe€motion€to€recuse€if€the€judgeððs€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.Ð ')w$( ÐHence,€the€test€is€ultimately€an€objective€one€since€the€appearance€of€bias€is€asÐ *`%) Ðinjurious€to€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€system€as€actual€bias.€However,€the€mere€factÐ ù*I&* Ðthat€a€judge€has€ruled€adversely€to€a€party€or€witness€in€a€prior€judicial€proceedingÐ â+2'+ Ðis€not€grounds€for€recusal€....€If€the€rule€were€otherwise,€recusal€would€be€requiredÐ ° Ðas€a€matter€of€course€since€trial€courts€necessarily€rule€against€parties€and€witnessesÐ ™é Ðin€every€case,€and€litigants€could€manipulate€the€impartiality€issue€for€strategicÐ ‚Ò Ðadvantage,€which€the€courts€frown€upon.òòò òÐk»Ð Ð  ÐÌId.óó€at€564„5ó ó€(internal€citations€omitted).€Therefore,€we€must€determine€whether€Judge€BaileyÐ < Œ Ðcommitted€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€failing€to€recuse€himself.€In€making€this€determination€we€willÐ ( x Ðlook€for€a€ð ðclear€abuse€...€on€the€face€of€the€record.ððÐ  a ÐÌà  àThe€affidavits€filed€by€Ms.€Yeubanks€on€appeal€contain€a€number€of€factual€allegations€that,Ð ã 3  Ðin€her€view,€establish€Judge€Baileyððs€bias€or€prejudice€in€favor€of€defendants.€We€will€quote€atÐ Ì   Ðlength€from€the€affidavits€of€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€counsel,€T.€Robert€Hill€and€Frankie€E.€Wade,€since,€ofÐ µ  Ðthe€six€affidavits€filed€by€Ms.€Yeubanks,€these€contain€the€most€detailed€factual€allegations€on€thisÐ žî  Ðissue.Ð ‡×  ÐÌà  àIn€his€affidavit,€T.€Robert€Hill€asserts€that€the€following€incidents€indicated€Judge€BaileyððsÐ Y©  Ðð ðeffort€...€to€unreasonably€favor€the€defendants€in€this€medical€malpractice€caseðð:Ð B’ ÐÌà8  à(A)à0` Ð Ð àOn€June€11€and€12,€2001,€before€the€start€of€the€trial€and€without€prior€noticeÐ d Ðto€the€plaintiff,€the€Court€(J.€Bailey)€entertained€over€plaintiffððs€objectionÐ ýM Ðmultiple€new€written€motions€for€summary€judgment€(or€motions€to€dismiss)Ð æ6 Ðsupported€by€lengthy€briefs€and€non„specific€references€to€depositionÐ Ï Ðtestimony€taken€from€more€than€fifty€witnesses€(over€3,000€pages)€andÐ ¸ Ðhundreds€of€documents€and€pleadings€claiming€that€the€hospital€and€otherÐ ¡ñ Ðdefendants€could€not€be€held€legally€responsible€for€acts€of€certain€residentsÐ ŠÚ Ðand€unlicensed€international€medical€students€because€the€defendantsÐ sà Ð(movants)€were€not€notified€of€the€specific€names€of€the€residents€andÐ \¬ Ðstudents.ÐE•` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(B)à0` Ð Ð àPlaintiffððs€trial€counsel€was€required€to€respond€without€time€to€read€theÐ g Ðmotions€and€briefs€or€to€respond€to€the€motions€as€permitted€by€law.€TheÐ  P ÐCourt€(J.€Bailey)€continually€demanded€that€counsel€point€out€by€page€andÐ é 9 Ðline€from€more€than€fifty€depositions€and€over€200€pleadings,€the€testimonyÐ Ò!"  Ðor€other€ð ðplacesðð€that€would€disprove€the€defendantsðð€conclusionaryÐ »" ! Ðarguments.€Even€after€pointing€out€several€ð ðplacesðð€that€contained€theÐ ¤#ô" Ðinformation,€Judge€Bailey€still€granted€defendantsðð€motions€to€dismiss.Ð$Ý#` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(C)à0` Ð Ð àThe€court€expended€the€first€two€trial€days€on€these€last€second€defenseÐ _&¯!% Ðmotions,€even€though€plaintiff€had€multiple€experts€and€witnesses€on€standbyÐ H'˜"& Ðto€start€the€trial.€No€evidence€was€taken€until€the€afternoon€of€the€sixth€dayÐ 1(#' Ðof€trial.Ð)j$(` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(D)à0` Ð Ð àJudge€Bailey€repeatedly€spent€hours€on€other€case€matters€before€calling€theÐ ì*<&* Ðplaintiffððs€case€to€trial.€In€fact,€from€June€11,€2001€to€July€18,€2001€the€CourtÐ Õ+%'+ Ðheard€witnessesðð€testimony€on€only€14€days.€The€plaintiffsðð€proof€took€a€totalÐ ° Ðof€approximately€36€and€one„half€hours,€an€average€of€two€and€one„halfÐ ™é Ðhours€per€trial€day,€which€significantly€increased€the€cost€of€the€trial€toÐ ‚Ò Ðplaintiff€and€her€attorneys€and€wrecked€the€continuity€of€plaintiffððs€case„in„Ð k» Ðchief.ÐT¤` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(E)à0` Ð Ð àJudge€Bailey€repeatedly,€solely€because€this€lawyer€wished€to€argue€anÐ & v Ðopposite€position€on€an€issue€or€for€no€reason€apparent€on€the€record,Ð  _ Ðthreatened€to€send€me€to€jail.€This€attack€on€counsel€both€in€front€and€out€ofÐ ø H Ðthe€presence€of€the€jury€is€clear€from€the€record€and€from€post„trial€interviewsÐ á 1  Ðwith€jurors€as€evidenced€by€their€affidavits.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐÊ  ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(F)à0` Ð Ð àThe€Court€(Judge€Bailey)€would€never€entertain€plaintiffððs€requests€(motions)Ð œì  Ðto€conclude€an€expert€witness€before€adjournment,€but€would€make€everyÐ …Õ  Ðaccommodation€for€defendants€that€was€requested,€including€allowing€aÐ n¾  Ðdefendantððs€liability/causation€expert€witness€to€testify€in€the€middle€ofÐ W§  Ðplaintiffððs€case€because€the€expert€was€planning€a€vacation.€ThisÐ @ Ðaccommodation€was€granted€defendants€when€the€Court€had€delayedÐ )y Ðplaintiffððs€expertsðð€testimony€for€days€to€hear€contested€divorce€matters€andÐ b Ðunrelated€motions€and€other€matters.ÐûK` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(G)à0` Ð Ð àYour€affiant€estimates€that€the€Courtððs€attitude€toward€plaintiff€and€herÐ Í Ðattorneys€increased€the€cost€of€the€aborted€first€trial€by€300%€or€more.ж` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(H)à0` Ð Ð àThe€Court€interrupted€the€examination€of€witnesses€and€on€one€occasionÐ ˆØ Ðterminated€the€examination€(in€front€of€the€jury)€òòsua€sponteóó€because€he€hadÐ qÁ Ðnot€heard€anything€relevant€to€the€case€even€though€the€witness€claimed€toÐ Zª Ðhave€been€present€when€the€plaintiffððs€nine€(9)€year€[old]€child€bled€to€death.ÐC“` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌIn€her€affidavit,€plaintiffsðð€trial€counsel€Frankie€E.€Wade€relates€a€similar€list€of€occurrences€thatÐ e Ðdemonstrate€ð ðthe€hostility,€bias€and€prejudiceðð€of€Judge€Bailey:Ð þN ÐÌà8  à(A)à0` Ð Ð àAs€a€result€of€Judge€Baileyððs€demeanor€and€court€room€procedures,€I€beganÐ Ð!   Ðkeeping€time€on€the€first€day€of€trial.€The€court€heard€witnesses€on€fourteenÐ ¹" ! Ð(14)€days.€The€average€time€of€trial€testimony€per€day€was€two€(2)€hours€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðfifty„nine€(59)€minutes,€maximum.Ћ$Û#` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(B)à0` Ð Ð àJudge€Bailey€refused€to€give€plaintiffððs€counsel€time€to€read€and€prepare€forÐ ]&­!% Ðargument€on€numerous€pre„trial€motions€late„filed€by€defendants.ÐF'–"&` Ð ` Ð  Ðâ âÐ /(#' Ðà8  à(C)à0` Ð Ð àJudge€Bailey€repeatedly€interrupted€arguments€of€plaintiffððs€counsel€to€theÐ ° Ðâ âextent€that€plaintiffððs€position€could€not€be€adequately€explained.Йé` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à(D)à0` Ð Ð àAlthough€Judge€Bailey€heard€defendantsðð€late„filed€(and€heard€overÐ k» Ðplaintiffððs€objections)€motions€within€seven€(7)€days€of€the€trial€beginning,Ð T¤ Ðwhen€plaintiff€presented€a€list€of€motions€to€be€heard€before€openingÐ =  Ðstatements,€Judge€Bailey€refused€to€hear€plaintiffððs€motions.à8@)` Ð ` Ð àÐ & v ÐÌà8  à(E)à0` Ð Ð àJudge€Bailey€sustained€the€objection€of€all€defendants€to€plaintiffððs€use€of€Ð ø H Ðdemonstrative€aids€during€opening€argument.€However,€over€plaintiffððsÐ á 1  Ðobjection,€Judge€Bailey€allowed€Dr.€Hixsonððs€counsel€to€use€a€demonstrativeÐ Ê   Ðaid€during€opening.г ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(F)à0` Ð Ð àPlaintiff€requested€the€judgeððs€cooperation€in€the€scheduling€and€calling€ofÐ …Õ  Ðplaintiffððs€experts.€The€judge€refused.€However,€Judge€Bailey€allowedÐ n¾  Ðdefendant€Hertz€to€present€the€testimony€of€one€of€her€experts€duringÐ W§  Ðplaintiffððs€proof.Ð@` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(G)à0` Ð Ð àPlaintiff€called€Stephanie€Plunk€as€a€witness€and€asked€the€court€to€designateÐ b Ðher€as€an€adverse€witness€because€she€was€still€a€hospital€employee€and€wasÐ ûK Ðrepresented€by€defendant€hospitalððs€counsel.€The€Judge€refused.€When€Ms.Ð ä4 ÐPlunk€refused€to€respond€to€non„leading€questions,€Judge€Bailey€unilaterallyÐ Í Ðended€plaintiffððs€direct€testimony€because€of€Mr.€Hillððs€asking€leadingÐ ¶ Ðquestions.Пï` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(H)à0` Ð Ð àPlaintiff€called€Teresa€Stobaugh,€another€employee€of€the€hospital.€RecessÐ qÁ Ðwas€taken€during€her€testimony.€During€the€recess,€Judge€Bailey€òòsua€sponteÐ Zª Ðóóasked€what€relevant€evidence€the€witness€had.€Defendant€hospital€objectedÐ C“ Ðto€further€testimony.€Judge€Bailey€dismissed€the€witness€without€explanationÐ ,| Ðto€the€jury.Ðe` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(I)à0` Ð Ð àJurors€asked€the€court€to€see€certain€exhibits,€including€the€hospital€chart.Ð ç 7 ÐJudge€Bailey€forgot€to€pass€them.€During€the€middle€of€plaintiffððs€witnessÐ Ð!   ÐLinda€Tiptonððs€testimony,€he€interrupted€the€witness€and€distracted€the€juryÐ ¹" ! Ðduring€her€testimony€by€conversing€openly€with€his€bailiff€and€asking€that€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðbailiff€gather€and€pass€the€hospital€chart€to€the€jurors.€His€action€caused€Mr.Ð ‹$Û# ÐHill€to€object€(see€his€affidavit).€Ðt%Ä $` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(J)à0` Ð Ð àDuring€trial,€Judge€Bailey€heard€extensive€argument€regarding€a€separateÐ F'–"& Ðlawsuit€by€the€deceased€childððs€father€against€plaintiff€and€sustainedÐ /(#' Ðplaintiffððs€objections€to€its€admissibility.€However,€after€the€trial,€JudgeÐ )h$( ÐBailey€entered€an€order,€which€had€not€been€served€on€the€plaintiff€orÐ *Q%) Ðapproved€for€entry,€allowing€defendants€to€obtain€confidential€settlementÐ ê*:&* Ðdocuments€in€that€case.ÐÓ+#'+` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(K)à0` Ð Ð àI€discovered€the€order€only€after€obtaining€the€technical€record€to€prepare€forÐ ™é Ðappeal.€I€immediately€advised€Mr.€Hill€of€the€matter€and€he€took€the€actionÐ ‚Ò Ðset€out€in€his€affidavit.à8À` Ð ` Ð àÐk»ÀpÀp ÐThe€affidavits€of€the€four€jurors€who€sat€through€the€original€trial€of€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€lawsuit€wereÐ T¤ Ðconsiderably€less€detailed€in€their€allegations.€Juror€John€David€Howard€stated,€ð ðIt€is€my€opinionÐ =  Ðthat€during€the€trial€of€the€òòYeubanksóó€case€Judge€Bailey€exhibited€an€obvious,€personal€bias€orÐ & v Ðprejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€To€me,€this€bias€or€prejudice€wasÐ  _ Ðevident€from€the€beginning€of€the€trial.ðð€Juror€Wesley€Moss€stated,€ð ðDuring€the€trial,€it€was€and€isÐ ø H Ðmy€opinion€that€there€were€several€times€Judge€Bailey€appeared€biased€or€prejudiced€in€favor€of€theÐ á 1  Ðdefendants€in€front€of€the€jury.ðð€Juror€Lynne€Hinton€stated,€ð ðIn€my€opinion,€Judge€Bailey€seemedÐ Ê   Ðto€favor€the€defendants€throughout€the€trial€of€the€case.€One€example€of€how€he€seemed€to€favor€theÐ ³  Ðdefendants€is€in€how€he€allowed€their€lawyers€to€question€witnesses€compared€to€how€he€allowedÐ œì  Ðthe€plaintiffððs€lawyer€to€conduct€the€questioning€of€witnesses.ðð€Juror€Sean€Murrin,€who€offered€theÐ …Õ  Ðmost€detailed€affidavit,€stated,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows,Ð n¾  ÐÌà8  à5.à0` Ð Ð àIt€is€my€opinion€that€during€the€trial€of€the€òòYeubanksóó€case€Judge€BaileyÐ @ Ðexhibited€an€obvious,€personal€bias€or€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants€inÐ )y Ðthe€presence€of€the€jury.€To€me,€this€bias€or€prejudice€was€evident€from€theÐ b Ðbeginning€of€the€trial.ÐûK` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à6.à0` Ð Ð àIt€was€my€observation€and€opinion,€as€a€juror,€that€Judge€Bailey€had€personalÐ Í Ðprejudice€or€ill€will€against€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€attorney,€Mr.€Robert€Hill.€OfÐ ¶ Ðparticular€concern€to€me€was€that€when€Mr.€Hill€attempted€to€question€aÐ Ÿï Ðwitness,€the€judge€continually€interrupted€him€or€would€not€allow€him€to€askÐ ˆØ Ðquestions€of€the€witness,€or€attempted€to€cut€the€witnessðð€testimony€short,€butÐ qÁ Ðwould€allow€the€attorneys€for€the€doctors€and€hospitals€as€muchÐ Zª Ðuninterrupted€time€as€they€wanted.ÐC“` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à7.à0` Ð Ð àAlso,€an€event€I€found€disturbing€as€a€juror€was€when€a€witness€for€Ms.Ð e ÐYeubanks€was€testifying,€Judge€Bailey€interrupted€her€testimony€by€passingÐ þN Ðexhibits€not€related€to€her€testimony€to€the€jury€for€examination,€therebyÐ ç 7 Ðdistracting€the€jury€from€what€she€had€to€say.€The€judge€then€abruptly€endedÐ Ð!   Ðher€testimony,€saying€he€had€heard€enough.й" !` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à8.à0` Ð Ð àDuring€the€trial,€the€judge€cut€short€more€than€one€of€Ms.€YeubanksððÐ ‹$Û# Ðwitnesses.€This€was€disturbing€to€me€because€I€felt,€as€a€juror,€that€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðwitnesses€should€have€been€given€the€opportunity€to€complete€theirÐ ]&­!% Ðtestimony.ÐF'–"&` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à9.à0` Ð Ð àAs€a€juror€in€this€case,€I€also€found€it€disturbing€that€Judge€Bailey€allowedÐ )h$( Ðthe€attorneys€for€the€doctors€and€hospital€to€question€Ms.€Yeubanks€forÐ *Q%) Ðseveral€hours€about€her€past.€It€seemed€they€were€trying€very€hard€to€makeÐ ê*:&* ÐMs.€Yeubanks€look€bad€and€the€judge€did€not€stop€them,€however,€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðattorneys€for€the€doctor€and€hospital€spent€almost€no€time€at€all€talking€aboutÐ ° Ðwhat€happened€at€the€hospital,€which€was€the€reason€we€were€in€court.Йé` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌUpon€reviewing€these€affidavits,€we€conclude€that€there€is€not€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record€forÐ k» Ðus€to€hold€that€Judge€Bailey€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€to€recuse€himself€from€the€trial€of€thisÐ T¤ Ðmatter.€Although€several€affiants€did€describe€specific€instances€that,€in€their€view,€demonstratedÐ =  Ðthe€bias€and€prejudice€of€Judge€Bailey,€we€find€these€allegations€to€be€unhelpful€whenÐ & v Ðunaccompanied€by€a€transcript€of€the€proceedings€in€the€first€trial€of€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€lawsuit.€It€isÐ  _ Ðimportant€to€note€that,€as€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€pointed€out€in€òòò òDavis€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.Ð ø H ÐCo.ó óóó,€ò ò38€S.W.3d€564„5€(Tenn.€2001),ó ó€the€question€is€whether€ð ða€person€of€ordinary€prudence€in€theÐ â 2  Ðjudgeððs€position,€òòknowing€all€of€the€facts€known€to€the€judgeóó,€would€find€a€reasonable€basis€forÐ Î   Ðquestioning€the€judgeððs€impartialityðð€(emphasis€added).€Only€a€transcript€would€allow€us€to€knowÐ ·  Ðð ðall€the€facts€known€to€the€judge.ðð€A€transcript€would€permit€us€to€consider€these€incidents€in€theÐ  ð  Ðtrial€context€in€which€they€occurred.€It€is€not€clear€to€us€that€the€incidents,€presented€to€us€inÐ ‰Ù  Ðaffidavits€out€of€the€context€of€the€trial€as€a€whole,€could€be€reasonably€thought,€by€an€objective€andÐ r  Ðprudent€observer,€to€evince€any€bias€or€prejudice€on€Judge€Baileyððs€partð— ðrather,€they€may€simplyÐ [«  Ðbe€decisions€of€the€trial€court€that€did€not€please€Ms.€Yeubanks€and€her€counsel.€As€the€SupremeÐ D” ÐCourt€noted€in€òòò òDavis€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,Ð -} Ðó óÌà8  à[T]he€mere€fact€that€a€judge€has€ruled€adversely€to€a€party€or€witness€in€a€priorÐ R Ðjudicial€proceeding€is€not€grounds€for€recusal€....€If€the€rule€were€otherwise,€recusalÐ ë; Ðwould€be€required€as€a€matter€of€course€since€trial€courts€necessarily€rule€againstÐ Ô$ Ðparties€and€witnesses€in€every€case,€and€litigants€could€manipulate€the€impartialityÐ ½  Ðissue€for€strategic€advantage,€which€the€courts€frown€upon.ЦöÐ Ð  Ðò òÌ38€S.W.3d€at€565€(Tenn.€2001)ó ó.€Moreover,€we€note€that€the€only€specific€allegations€of€bias€madeÐ yÉ Ðby€jurors€concern€rulings€by€the€trial€court€that€may€have€been€perfectly€proper,€even€if€such€rulingsÐ eµ Ðmay€have€seemed€to€reflect€the€judgeððs€bias€to€observers€unfamiliar€with€the€fine€points€of€civilÐ Nž Ðprocedure€and€trial€practice.€For€example,€juror€Lynne€Hinton€detected€bias€in€ð ðhow€[Judge€Bailey]Ð 7‡ Ðallowed€[the€defendantsðð]€lawyers€to€question€witnesses€compared€to€how€he€allowed€the€plaintiffððsÐ  p Ðlawyer€to€conduct€the€questioning€of€witnesses.ðð€But€as€every€attorney€knows,€plaintiffs€andÐ  Y Ðdefendants€have€different€degrees€of€latitude€in€questioning€witnesses€at€trial.€Similarly,€juror€SeanÐ ò B ÐMurrin€ð ðfound€it€disturbing€that€Judge€Bailey€allowed€the€attorneys€for€the€doctors€and€hospital€toÐ Û!+  Ðquestion€Ms.€Yeubanks€for€several€hours€about€her€past,ðð€while€spending€ð ðalmost€no€time€at€allÐ Ä"! Ðtalking€about€what€happened€at€the€hospital€....ðð€As€with€Ms.€Hintonððs€allegation,€this€appears€to€beÐ ­#ý" Ða€reflection€more€of€a€jurorððs€understandable€ignorance€of€trial€practice,€rather€than€proof€of€any€biasÐ –$æ# Ðor€prejudice€on€Judge€Baileyððs€part.€The€six€affidavits€simply€are€insufficient€to€find€that€JudgeÐ %Ï $ Ðâ âBailey€abused€his€discretion€in€failing€to€recuse€himself.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð h&¸!% Ðà  àHowever,€even€if€there€were€sufficient€evidence€to€find€that€Judge€Bailey€abused€hisÐ ° Ðâ âdiscretion€in€failing€to€recuse€himself,€we€believe€Ms.€Yeubanks€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€moveÐ ™é Ðfor€his€recusal€during€the€trial.€It€is€well„established€in€Tennessee€law€that€ð ða€party€must€complainÐ ‚Ò Ðand€seek€relief€immediately€after€the€occurrence€of€a€prejudicial€event€and€may€not€silently€preserveÐ k» Ðthe€event€as€an€ððace€in€the€holeðð€to€be€used€in€event€of€an€adverse€decision.ððò ò€òòGotwald€v.€Gotwaldóó,Ð T¤ Ð768€S.W.2d€689,€694€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,1988)ó ó.€The€incidents€described€by€Ms.€Yeubanks,€thatÐ @  Ðallegedly€establish€Judge€Baileyððs€bias€or€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants,€began€on€the€veryÐ , | Ðfirst€day€of€the€trial,€as€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€trial€counsel€admit€in€their€affidavits.€Ms.€Wade,€for€example,Ð  e Ðstates€that€she€began€keeping€time€on€the€very€first€day€of€trial€ð ð[a]s€a€result€of€Judge€BaileyððsÐ þ N Ðdemeanor€and€court€room€procedures.ðð€Similarly,€in€his€affidavit€Mr.€Hill€adduces€several€incidentsÐ ç 7  Ðthat€occurred€prior€to€the€start€of€the€trial,€and€during€the€first€two€days€of€trial,€as€evidence€of€JudgeÐ Ð  ÐBaileyððs€alleged€bias€or€prejudice€in€favor€of€the€defendants.€Yet,€the€record€contains€no€suggestionÐ ¹  Ðthat€Ms.€Yeubanksðð€trial€counsel€sought€Judge€Baileyððs€recusal,€or€otherwise€brought€his€alleged€biasÐ ¢ò  Ðor€prejudice€to€his€attention,€during€the€trial.Ð ‹Û  ÐÌà  àTherefore,€for€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.Ð ]­  ÐÌà  àò òIssue€3:ó ó€ð ðWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€case€for€failure€to€pay€discretionaryÐ / Ðcosts€after€it€refused€to€recuse€itself€and€transfer€the€case€to€another€division.ððÐ k ÐÌà  àMs.€Yeubanksðð€third€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€caseÐ í= Ðfor€failure€to€pay€discretionary€costs€after€the€trial€court€failed€to€recuse€itself€and€transfer€the€caseÐ Ö& Ðto€another€division.€Although€Ms.€Yeubanks€states€this€as€one€of€the€issues€on€appeal,€she€presentsÐ ¿ Ðno€argument€for€it€in€her€appeal€brief.€In€our€decision€in€ò òòòYeubanks€Ióóó ó,€this€Court€affirmed€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourtððs€award€of€discretionary€costs€against€Ms.€Yeubanks,€but€we€held€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erredÐ ’â Ðin€ordering€that€the€costs€be€paid€prior€to€the€refiling€of€the€case€....ðð€Instead,€we€held,€ð ð[t]he€ruleÐ {Ë Ðclearly€contemplates€that€the€determination€of€when€the€plaintiff€must€pay€costs€previously€orderedÐ d´ Ðis€made€after€the€case€is€refiled.ððÐ M ÐÌà  àNow,€in€the€present€appeal,€Ms.€Yeubanks€argues€that,€since€Judge€Bailey€should€haveÐ o Ðrecused€himself,€his€entry€of€a€further€order€dismissing€this€case€for€failure€to€pay€discretionary€costsÐ  X Ðwas€in€error.€In€light€of€our€holding€that€Judge€Bailey€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€failing€to€recuseÐ ñ A Ðhimself,€we€pretermit€any€consideration€of€this€issue.Ð Ú!*  ÐÌà  àò òIssue€4:ó ó€Whether€this€appeal€is€frivolous.Ð ¬#ü" ÐÌà  àAppelleeððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€present€appeal€by€Ms.€Yeubanks€is€frivolous.€Ð %Ñ $ ÐA€frivolous€appeal€is€one€that€has€no€reasonable€chance€of€success.ò ò€òòLovelace€v.€Owens„Illinois,€Inc.óó,Ð j&º!% Ð632€S.W.2d€553,€555€(Tenn.€1982)ó ó.€T.C.A.€27„1„122€provides€for€damages€to€be€awarded€againstÐ V'¦"& Ða€party€who€brings€a€frivolous€appeal:Ð B(’#' Ðà8  àWhen€it€appears€to€any€reviewing€court€that€the€appeal€from€any€court€of€record€wasÐ +){$( Ðfrivolous€or€taken€solely€for€delay,€the€court€may,€either€upon€motion€of€a€party€orÐ *d%) Ðâ âof€its€own€motion,€award€just€damages€against€the€appellant,€which€may€include,€butÐ ý*M&* Ðneed€not€be€limited€to,€costs,€interest€on€the€judgment,€and€expenses€incurred€by€theÐ ° Ðappellee€as€a€result€of€the€appeal.ЙéÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌAs€our€Supreme€Court€has€stated,€ð ðSuccessful€litigants€should€not€have€to€bear€the€expense€andÐ k» Ðvexation€of€groundless€appeals.ðð€ò òòòDavis€v.€Gulf€Insurance€Groupóó,€546€S.W.2d€583,€586€(Tenn.Ð T¤ Ð1977)ó ó.€In€reviewing€the€record€and€considering€this€issue,€this€Court€finds€it€telling€that€Ms.Ð @  ÐYeubanks,€through€her€counsel,€declined€to€include€a€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings,€despite€theÐ , | Ðfact€that€her€issues€on€appeal€all€concerned€the€alleged€bias€of€the€trial€judge.€Seasoned€trial€counselÐ  e Ðsuch€as€those€retained€by€Ms.€Yeubanks,€with€a€combined€sixty€years€of€practice€before€the€courtsÐ þ N Ðof€Tennessee,€can€be€expected€to€know€that€claims€of€bias€require€the€reviewing€court€to€make€aÐ ç 7  Ðclose€and€careful€examination€of€the€transcript€of€the€trial,€to€see€the€judgeððs€rulings€and€remarks€inÐ Ð  Ðcontext.€We€hold€that€this€appeal€is€frivolous.Ð ¹  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓV.€CONCLUSIONó óÐ ‹Û  ÐÓ±¬ÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÐ ^®  Ða€determination€of€damages€for€the€frivolous€appeal.€Costs€in€this€appeal€are€assessed€againstÐ G— ÐAppellant,€Christina€Yeubanks,€and€her€surety.Ô#†¼Ìé»XXß®#ÔÔ€XßX»¼ÌéÔÐ 0€ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð Ô$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.