ÿWPC­ .# ”UNŸ %í 0(ów@4[o~ 0J† 0TÐ 0^$ 0h‚ 0rê 0|\ 0†Ø 0^ 1uî 0dcU>ÇB) DC. AQq ÆÂ 0Dˆ 0@Ì 0D AMP D/ BÌ Bé D3 U*9 ùc v~\ vÓÚ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ QUR S T U V£WXYÓ€cê‚_#3|xc2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó!#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial ïÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌApril€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€Ìà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òCARVER€PLUMBING€COMPANYó ó,à à)à àDavidson€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òINC.ó ó,à à)à àNo.€95C„2130Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€01A01„9708„CV„00377ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€%+A1-j|cþ` ç `€€@ÿRß›à à)Ìò òMARTHA€CONE€BECKó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€at€Nashville.Ìò òHonorable€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òJohn€L.€Whitfield,€Jr.ó ó,€MOODY,€WHITFIELD€&€CASTELLARIN,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌò òWinston€S.€Evansó ó,€EVANS,€JONES€&€REYNOLDS,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àPlaintiff€Carver€Plumbing€Company,€Inc.€(Carver€Plumbing),€appeals€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€entering€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Carver€Plumbingððs€former€attorney,ÏDefendant/Appellee€Martha€Cone€Beck€(Beck).€€We€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€based€on€ourÏconclusion€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€whether€Carver€Plumbingððs€actionÏagainst€Beck€is€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€legal€malpractice€actions.ÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€these€summary€judgment€proceedings,€the€following€facts€wereÏundisputed.€€In€March€1993,€Carver€Plumbing€retained€Beck€to€collect€money€it€was€owed€forÏwork€performed€on€a€renovation€project€at€the€International€Plaza€building€in€Nashville.€€PremierÏBuilders€was€the€general€contractor€on€the€renovation€project,€and€Carver€Plumbing€was€one€of€theÏsubcontractors€which€performed€work€on€the€project€pursuant€to€a€subcontract€with€PremierÏBuilders.€€The€International€Plaza€building€was€owned€by€Equitable€Pacific€Partners.€€After€CarverÏPlumbing€performed€the€work€as€agreed,€Premier€Builders€failed€to€pay€it€the€balance€due€underÏthe€subcontract.€€Consequently,€Carver€Plumbing€retained€Beck.€€ÌÌà àRobert€Carver,€the€president€of€Carver€Plumbing,€initially€met€with€Beck€when€heÏhired€her.€€During€this€meeting,€Carver€told€Beck€that€he€wanted€to€file€a€lien€against€the€property.ÏThis€was€the€first€time€that€either€Carver€or€Carver€Plumbing€had€found€it€necessary€to€file€aÏmechanicððs€lien,€and€Carverððs€knowledge€of€such€liens€was€limited.€€Throughout€BeckððsÏrepresentation€of€Carver€Plumbing,€Carver€communicated€with€Beckððs€assistants.€€Primarily,ÏCarver€dealt€with€Beckððs€son€and€legal€assistant,€Bill€Beck.€€ÌÌà àAfter€being€retained€by€Carver€Plumbing,€Beck€prepared€and€filed€a€ð ðNotice€forÏFurnisherððs€Lienðð€on€March€15,€1993,€in€which€Beck€notified€both€Equitable€Pacific€Partners€andÍPremier€Builders€that€Carver€Plumbing€was€claiming€and€holding€a€mechanicððs€lien€on€theÏInternational€Plaza€building€in€the€amount€of€$17,000.€€The€notice,€which€was€signed€by€RobertÏCarver,€erroneously€indicated€that€Carver€Plumbing€was€claiming€a€mechanicððs€lien€pursuant€toÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€66„1„101€ò òòòet€seqó óóó.€€The€statutes€establishing€Carver€PlumbingððsÏright€to€a€mechanicððs€lien€actually€were€codified€at€section€66„11„101€ò òòòet€seqó óóó.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.Ïðððð66„11„101€to€66„11„208€(1993).ÌÌà àIn€April€or€May€of€1993,€Robert€Carver€became€upset€when€he€heard€that€otherÏsubcontractors€were€collecting€money€for€their€work€on€the€project.€€When€Carver€confronted€BillÏBeck€about€this€development,€Carver€was€assured€that€Beck€was€doing€everything€she€could€toÏcollect€the€money€owed€to€Carver€Plumbing.€€Sometime€in€1993,€although€it€is€not€clear€when,ÏCarver€and€Bill€Beck€engaged€in€a€heated€argument€over€Beckððs€handling€of€Carver€PlumbingððsÏcase.€€During€this€argument,€Bill€Beck€advised€Carver€to€hire€another€lawyer€if€he€did€not€like€theÏway€Beck€was€handling€the€case.€€Carver€consulted€another€attorney€but€the€second€attorneyÏadvised€Carver€to€stay€with€his€original€attorney€if€possible€because€she€had€all€of€the€case€recordsÏand€documents.€€When€Carver€called€Beckððs€office€to€request€the€Carver€Plumbing€file,€Bill€Beck,Ïwho€by€then€had€calmed€down,€asked€Carver€to€return€to€the€office€to€talk.€€Thereafter,€BeckÏcontinued€to€represent€Carver€Plumbing.€€ÌÌà àUnder€the€Tennessee€statute€relative€to€mechanicððs€liens,€Beck€had€ninety(90)€daysÏfrom€the€time€of€filing€notice€of€the€lien€in€which€to€file€suit€to€enforce€the€lien.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.Ïðð66„11„115(c)€(1993)€(providing€that€mechanicððs€lien€shall€continue€for€90€days€from€date€ofÏnotice€and€that,€if€suit€for€enforcement€is€brought€within€90„day€period,€lien€shall€continue€untilÏtermination€of€suit).€€Despite€this€statute,€Beck€failed€to€file€a€suit€to€enforce€the€lien€against€theÏbuildingððs€owner,€Equitable€Pacific€Partners,€within€the€90„day€period.€€ÌÌà àIn€November€1993,€Beck€filed€a€lawsuit€on€behalf€of€Carver€Plumbing€against€theÍprojectððs€general€contractor,€Premier€Builders.€€That€same€month,€another€one€of€Beckððs€legalÏassistants€sent€a€copy€of€the€complaint€with€a€transmittal€letter€to€Robert€Carver.€€The€face€of€theÏcomplaint€indicated€that€the€only€entity€being€sued€was€Premier€Builders€and,€in€fact,€the€complaintÏdid€not€even€mention€Equitable€Pacific€Partners.€€In€May€1994,€a€default€judgment€was€enteredÏagainst€Premier€Builders.€€Ultimately,€the€default€judgment€proved€to€be€uncollectible€becauseÏPremier€Builders€filed€for€bankruptcy.€€ÌÌà àOn€January19,€1995,€Beck€wrote€a€letter€to€Robert€Carver€in€which€she€advisedÏhim€of€the€status€of€his€case.€€As€pertinent€to€this€legal€malpractice€action,€Beckððs€letter€containedÏthe€following€paragraph:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€my€understanding€from€talking€with€Bill€[Beck]€that€you€did€notÏwish€to€bring€suit€against€Equitable€Pacific€Partners€because€aÏrelative€of€yours€worked€for€them.€€Based€on€this€desire€we€did€notÏinclude€Equitable€Pacific€in€the€lawsuit€and€the€time€has€now€passedÏin€which€we€can€now€file€suit€against€them.€€ÌÌÓÓÌAccording€to€Carver,€his€receipt€of€this€letter€was€the€first€time€he€realized€(1)that€Carver€PlumbingÏhad€a€potential€lawsuit€against€Equitable€Pacific€Partners€and€(2)that€Beck€had€failed€to€file€such€aÏlawsuit€within€the€time€required€by€law.ÌÌà àOn€July5,€1995,€Carver€Plumbing€filed€this€action€for€legal€malpractice€againstÏBeck€in€which€it€asserted€that€Beck€was€negligent€in€failing€to€file€a€lawsuit€against€EquitableÏPacific€Partners€within€the€statute€of€limitations€for€enforcement€of€the€mechanicððs€lien.€€After€filingÏher€answer,€Beck€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€which€she€contended,€ò òòòinter€aliaó óóó,€thatÏCarver€Plumbingððs€action€was€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€legalÏmalpractice€actions.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð28„3„104(a)(2)€(Supp.€1990).€€In€moving€for€summaryÏjudgment,€Beck€submitted€the€affidavits€of€herself€and€Bill€Beck,€which€averred€that€Beck€did€notÏfile€a€suit€against€Equitable€Pacific€Partners€to€enforce€the€lien€because€Robert€Carver€instructedÍthem€not€to€file€such€a€suit.€€According€to€the€Becks,€Carver€did€not€wish€to€sue€Equitable€PacificÏPartners€because€Carverððs€brother„in„law€worked€for€the€partnership€as€manager€of€theÏInternational€Plaza€building.€€Ìà àIn€his€opposing€affidavit€and€deposition,€Robert€Carver€denied€ever€giving€theseÏinstructions€to€Beck€or€to€any€of€her€assistants,€and€he€averred€that€he€instead€instructed€Beck€toÏsue€ð ðwhoever€had€to€be€suedðð€to€collect€the€money.€€Carver€was€aware€that€Beck,€on€CarverÏPlumbingððs€behalf,€filed€a€lawsuit€against€Premier€Builders€in€the€fall€of€1993.€€Carver€alsoÏacknowledged€that€the€documents€filed€in€the€lawsuit€revealed€that€the€only€defendant€was€PremierÏBuilders€and,€further,€that€Carver€received€no€documents€indicating€that€a€suit€had€been€filedÏagainst€the€buildingððs€owner,€Equitable€Pacific€Partners.€€Carver€explained,€however,€that€he€wasÏnot€even€aware€that€Carver€Plumbing€had€a€potential€lawsuit€against€Equitable€Pacific€Partners.€ÏThis€was€Carverððs€first€experience€with€filing€a€mechanicððs€lien,€and€Carverððs€understanding€ofÏsuch€liens€was€limited€to€the€knowledge€that€the€claimant€was€required€to€ð ð[j]ust€put€a€lien€on€theÏproperty€and€sue.ðð€€Carver€relied€on€Bill€Beckððs€representations€that€Beck€was€doing€everythingÏshe€could€to€pursue€Carver€Plumbingððs€claim.€€Carver€also€relied€on€Beckððs€professionalÏknowledge€and€expertise€to€pursue€Carver€Plumbingððs€claim€against€the€appropriate€parties.€ÏCarver€maintained€that€he€did€not€learn€of€Beckððs€failure€to€timely€pursue€a€potential€claim€againstÏEquitable€Pacific€Partners€until€Carver€received€Beckððs€letter€of€January19,€1995.€€Specifically,ÏCarver€testified€thatÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAgain,€I€was€told€everything€was€being€done€that€could€beÏdone.€€I€didnððt€know.€€You€know,€I€didnððt€know€about€a€lawsuitÏagainst€[Equitable€Pacific€Partners].€€I€thought„„€I€didnððt€know€youÏcould€file€a€lawsuit€against€them.€€I€was€relying€on€[Beck]€toÏrepresent€me€to€do€whatever€it€took€to€collect€my€money.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€trial€court€granted€Beckððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment,€ruling€that€Carver€Plumbingððs€legal€malpractice€action€was€untimely€becauseÏRobert€Carver€either€knew€or€should€have€known€as€early€as€1993€that€Beck€had€failed€to€file€a€suitÍto€enforce€the€lien€against€Equitable€Pacific€Partners€within€the€time€required€by€law.€€This€appealÏfollowed.€€ÌÌà àIn€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€we€are€reminded€that€summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€only€when€the€partiesðð€ð ðpleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€andÏadmissions€on€file,€together€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€toÏany€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€T.R.C.P.Ï56.04.€€In€determining€whether€or€not€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€for€purposes€ofÏsummary€judgment,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€consider€the€question€in€the€same€manner€as€aÏmotion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof.€€ò òòòByrdv.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2dÏ208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€That€is,€ð ðthe€trial€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,Ïand€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€210„11.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€also€is€guided€by€a€series€of€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€decisions,€which€have€developed€a€specific€formulation€of€the€ð ðdiscovery€ruleððÏapplicable€to€the€issue€of€when€a€legal€malpractice€action€accrues€for€statute€of€limitations€purposes.€Ïò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòCarvellv.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€1995);€ò òòòChambersv.€Dillowó óóó,€713€S.W.2dÏ896€(Tenn.€1986);€ò òòòSecurity€Bank&€Trust€Co.v.€Fabricating,€Inc.ó óóó,€673€S.W.2d€860Ï(Tenn.€1983),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€469€U.S.€1038€(1984);€ò òòòAmeraccount€Club,€Inc.v.€Hilló óóó,€617ÏS.W.2d€876€(Tenn.€1981).€€In€the€most€recent€of€these€decisions,€the€supreme€court€concluded€thatÏthe€ð ðlegal€malpractice€discovery€ruleðð€is€composed€of€two€distinct€elements:€€(1)the€plaintiff€mustÏhave€suffered€a€legally€cognizable€or€actual€injury€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€negligence;€andÏ(2)the€plaintiff€either€must€have€known€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence€should€haveÏknown€that€the€injury€was€caused€by€the€defendantððs€negligence.€€ò òòòCarvellv.€Bottomsó óóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€28.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€parties€do€not€dispute€that€Carver€Plumbing€suffered€aÏlegally€cognizable€injury€in€June€1993,€when€the€90„day€time€period€for€filing€a€suit€to€enforce€theÏmechanicððs€lien€expired.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,€ò òòòSmithv.€Petkoffó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€595,€597€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995)€(holding€that€plaintiff€suffered€ð ðactual€injuryðð€or€ð ðlegally€cognizable€injuryðð€on€date€statute€ofÏlimitations€ran€as€to€underlying€claim).€€Accordingly,€this€appeal€focuses€on€the€second€element€ofÏthe€discovery€rule€and€requires€this€court€to€determine€only€one€issue:€€whether€Robert€CarverÏknew€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence€should€have€known€more€than€one€year€prior€toÏfiling€the€present€lawsuit€that€Carver€Plumbing€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€of€Beckððs€negligence.ÌÌà àIn€discussing€this€second€element,€the€supreme€court€has€indicated€that€theÏð ðknowledgeðð€component€of€the€discovery€rule€may€be€supported€by€evidence€of€actual€orÏconstructive€knowledge€of€the€injury.€€ò òòòCarvellv.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€29.€€As€a€generalÏrule,€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€for€legal€malpractice€actions€begins€to€run€when€the€plaintiffÏhas€actual€knowledge€that€he€has€been€injured€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€breach€of€theÏappropriate€legal€standard.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€Under€the€theory€of€constructive€knowledge,€however,€the€statuteÏof€limitations€may€begin€to€run€at€an€earlier€date€if€the€evidence€shows€that€the€plaintiff€is€aware€ofÏfacts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€of€theÏdefendantððs€wrongful€conduct.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòGatlinburg€Summit€Horizontal€Property€Regime€Council€of€Co„Owners,€Inc.v.€Jarvisó óóó,€No.€03A01„9404„CV„00135,€1995€WL€10343€(Tenn.€App.€Jan.11,Ï1995),€this€court€similarly€was€faced€with€the€issue€of€when€the€statute€of€limitations€for€legalÏmalpractice€begins€to€run€where€the€alleged€injury€is€the€attorneyððs€failure€to€file€an€action€withinÏthe€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€In€that€case,€the€plaintiffððs€attorneys€failed€to€file€a€suit€forÏconstruction€defects€against€an€architectural€firm€within€the€applicable€three„year€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð28„3„105(1)€(Supp.€1989).€€When€the€suit€was€filed€against€theÏarchitectural€firm€in€federal€court,€the€plaintiff€did€not€know€that€the€suit€was€untimely€because€oneÍof€the€plaintiffððs€attorneys€erroneously€advised€the€plaintiff€that€the€statute€of€limitations€forÏconstruction€defects€was€four€years€instead€of€three.€€ò òòòGatlinburg€Summitó óóó,€1995€WL€10343,€atÏ*1.€€The€plaintiff€first€learned€that€the€suit€might€be€untimely€when€the€architectural€firm€filed€itsÏanswer€asserting€the€affirmative€defense€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€TheÏuntimeliness€of€the€suit€was€confirmed€when€the€federal€district€court€granted€summary€judgmentÏto€the€architectural€firm€based€on€this€defense.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€Sometime€later,€the€plaintiff€brought€a€suit€forÏlegal€malpractice€against€its€attorneys€based€on€their€failure€to€timely€file€the€suit€for€constructionÏdefects€against€the€architectural€firm.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*2.ÌÌà àIn€holding€that€the€statute€of€limitations€for€legal€malpractice€began€to€run€when€theÏarchitectural€firm€filed€its€answer€asserting€the€statute€of€limitations€defense€in€the€underlyingÏaction,€this€court€reasoned:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOur€study€of€the€various€cases€dealing€with€the€questionÏunder€consideration€here€leads€us€to€the€conclusion€that€each€caseÏmust€be€determined€individually€and€under€its€own€peculiarÏcircumstances.€€Stated€differently,€there€is€no€rule€that€can€beÏuniversally€applied€to€determine€when€the€statute€of€limitations€inÏlegal€malpractice€actions€commences€to€run.ÌÌà8 àà à...€it€would€appear€that€the€[plaintiff]€in€this€case€knew€orÏshould€have€known,€by€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€andÏdiligence,€that€the€alleged€malpractice€had€occurred€when€theÏ[architectural€firm]€in€the€Federal€District€Court€case€filed€[its]Ïanswer€asserting€the€affirmative€defense€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations....ÌÌà8 àà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€and€hold€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÏbegan€to€run€on€the€date€the€[architectural€firm]€in€the€FederalÏDistrict€Court€answered€asserting€the€affirmative€defense€of€theÏthree„year€statute€of€limitations.€€At€that€time,€(1)the€attorneys€hadÏcommitted€negligence,€(assuming€that€the€allegations€of€negligenceÏare€true€for€the€purposes€of€this€appeal)€(2)the€client€had€beenÏinjured€by€the€negligence€because€the€statute€had€expired...,€andÏ(3)the€[plaintiff]€had€discovered,€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonableÏcare€and€diligence,€should€have€discovered,€the€existence€of€the€factsÏconstituting€negligence€and€injury€or€damage€caused€by€theÏattorneysðð€negligence.ÌÌà8 àà àIn€ò òòòCaledonia€Leasing€and€Equipment€Co.,€Inc.v.ÏArmstrong,€et€aló óóó,€865€S.W.2d€10€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€we€findÍthe€following€teaching:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àA€cause€of€action€for€legal€malpracticeÏaccrues€and€the€statute€of€limitations€commences€toÏrun€when€(1)the€attorney€has€committed€negligence,Ï(2)the€client€has€been€injured€by€that€negligence,€andÏ(3)the€client€discovers,€or€in€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€care€and€diligence,€should€haveÏdiscovered€the€existence€of€the€facts€constitutingÏnegligence€and€the€injury€caused€by€the€attorneyððsÏnegligence.€€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà8 àà àIn€the€final€analysis,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€all€theÏrequirements€of€ò òòòCaledoniaó óóó€were€met€when€the€[plaintiff]€learnedÏthat€the€[architectural€firm€was]€relying€on€the€three„year€statute€ofÏÔ&  Ôlimitations€as€a€bar€to...€[the€plaintiffððs]€action.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòGatlinburg€Summitó óóó,€1995€WL€10343,€at€*3.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€whether€Robert€Carver€knew€or€should€have€known€moreÏthan€one€year€prior€to€filing€this€legal€malpractice€action€that€Beck€had€committed€negligence€andÏthat€this€negligence€had€caused€injury€to€Carver€Plumbing.€€When€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€Carver€Plumbing,€this€evidence€reveals€that€Carver€instructed€Beck€to€sue€ð ðwhoeverÏhad€to€be€suedðð€to€collect€the€money€that€Premier€Builders€owed€to€Carver€Plumbing.€€Instead€ofÏfiling€suit€to€enforce€the€lien€against€Equitable€Pacific€Partners€within€the€90„day€time€limit,€BeckÏlater€sued€only€Premier€Builders€to€recover€the€debt.€€Carver€was€not€aware,€nor€did€BeckÏapparently€advise€Carver,€that€a€suit€to€enforce€the€lien€could€be€filed€against€the€buildingððs€owner,ÏEquitable€Pacific€Partners.€€Accordingly,€Carver€did€not€question€Beckððs€decision€in€the€fall€ofÏ1993€to€sue€only€Premier€Builders€and€no€other€party.€€Carver€was€relying€on€Beckððs€professionalÏknowledge€and€expertise€to€handle€Carver€Plumbingððs€case€and,€until€he€received€Beckððs€letter€ofÏJanuary19,€1995,€Carver€was€unaware€that€a€lawsuit€also€could€have€been€pursued€againstÏEquitable€Pacific€Partners.€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€remains€asÏto€whether€Carver€knew,€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence€should€have€known,€prior€toÏreceipt€of€the€January19,€1995,€letter€(1)that€Carver€Plumbing€had€a€potential€lawsuit€againstÍEquitable€Pacific€Partners,€and€(2)that€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€for€filing€such€a€lawsuitÏhad€expired.ÌÌà àIn€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€to€Beck,€weÏdistinguish€the€facts€of€this€case€from€those€found€in€ò òòòBantonv.€Marksó óóó,€623€S.W.2d€113€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1981).€€In€ò òòòBantonv.€Marksó óóó,€the€defendant€attorneys€timely€brought€a€cause€of€actionÏagainst€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€who€caused€the€wrongful€death€of€the€plaintiffððs€husband,€but€theÏattorneys€failed€to€sue€the€treating€hospital€or€physician€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitationsÏfor€medical€malpractice€actions.€€ò òòòBantonv.€Marksó óóó,€623€S.W.2d€at€114.€€Thereafter,€the€plaintiffÏsued€her€attorneys€for€legal€malpractice.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€In€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€defendant€attorneys,€this€court€first€noted€the€legal€presumption€that€the€plaintiffÏwas€deemed€to€know€the€law,€ò òòòi.e.ó óóó€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€for€medical€malpracticeÏactions.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€115.€€Inasmuch€as€the€plaintiff€knew€that€the€defendants€had€not€filed€a€medicalÏmalpractice€action€on€the€date€that€the€statute€of€limitations€expired,€we€held€that€the€plaintiff€eitherÏdiscovered€or€reasonably€should€have€discovered€the€attorneysðð€negligence€on€that€date.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€atÏ116.€€In€contrast€to€the€present€case,€however,€the€plaintiff€in€ò òòòBantonv.€Marksó óóó€knew€that€sheÏhad€a€cause€of€action€against€the€hospital€and€physician€who€treated€her€husband€and,€in€fact,€theÏplaintiff€had€requested€her€attorneys€on€numerous€occasions€to€bring€a€medical€malpractice€actionÏagainst€these€parties.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€114.€€Here,€even€if€we€presumed€that€Carver€was€aware€of€theÏstatutory€time€limit€for€enforcing€the€lien,€this€knowledge€would€have€been€meaningless€absent€theÏaccompanying€knowledge€that€Carver€Plumbing€had€a€right€of€action€against€Equitable€PacificÏPartners€under€the€statute,€a€knowledge€Carver€disavowed€having€until€receipt€of€BeckððsÏJanuary19,€1995,€letter.ÌÌà àFor€similar€reasons,€we€reject€Beckððs€contention€that€Robert€Carver€had€at€leastÏconstructive€knowledge€of€the€alleged€malpractice€at€various€times€throughout€1993,€such€as€whenÏCarver€began€expressing€dissatisfaction€with€Beckððs€representation€of€Carver€Plumbing€or€whenÍCarver€received€copies€of€court€documents€indicating€that€suit€had€been€filed€only€against€theÏgeneral€contractor,€Premier€Builders.€€In€this€regard,€we€first€note€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏdoes€not€make€clear€whether€Carverððs€dissatisfaction€with€Beckððs€services€preceded€or€followedÏthe€expiration€of€the€90„day€limitations€period€for€filing€suit€to€enforce€the€lien.€€Inasmuch€asÏCarver€Plumbing€suffered€no€legally€cognizable€injury€until€the€limitations€period€expired,€weÏquestion€the€relevance€of€any€dissatisfaction€expressed€by€Carver€prior€to€the€expiration€of€thisÏperiod.€€At€most,€we€believe€that€this€evidence€creates€a€question€of€fact€as€to€whether€CarverÏshould€have€had€notice€of€Beckððs€impending€negligence.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,€ò òòòWoods&€Woodsv.ÏLewisó óóó,€902€S.W.2d€914,€917€(Tenn.€App.€1994)€(holding€that,€despite€clientððs€dissatisfactionÏwith€services€of€attorney,€where€client€was€layman€without€expertise€as€to€professional€standardsÏfor€attorneys,€and€was€not€subject€to€any€startling€development€in€proceedings€which€wouldÏsuggest€negligence€of€his€attorney€in€handling€case,€jury€question€was€presented€as€to€whetherÏclient€knew€or€reasonably€should€have€known€that€his€defense€was€being€neglected).€€We€also€doÏnot€think€that€Carverððs€knowledge€of€the€lawsuit€against€Premier€Builders€in€the€fall€of€1993€isÏdeterminative€of€the€issue€of€Carverððs€knowledge€of€Beckððs€negligence.€€If,€as€Carver€claims,€heÏwas€neither€apprised€nor€aware€prior€to€January€1995€that€Carver€Plumbing€had€a€right€of€actionÏagainst€Equitable€Pacific€Partners,€the€court€documents€from€the€suit€against€Premier€BuildersÏwould€not€necessarily€serve€to€inform€Carver€that€Beck€negligently€had€failed€to€file€a€lawsuitÏagainst€Equitable€Pacific€Partners.ÌÌà àIn€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€we€also€feel€compelled€to€expound€upon€theÏlegal€presumption€that€ð ðeveryone€is€deemed€to€know€the€law.ðð€€ò òòòBantonv.€Marksó óóó,€623€S.W.2dÏat€115.€€In€ò òòòBantonv.€Marksó óóó,€we€applied€this€presumption€to€hold€that€a€legal€malpracticeÏplaintiff€is€deemed€to€know€the€statute€of€limitations€for€the€underlying€action€in€which€the€attorneyÏrepresented€the€plaintiff.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€We€acknowledged,€however,€that€this€legal€presumption€was€not€aÏð ðweightyðð€one.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€Significantly,€this€presumption€was€mentioned€but€apparently€was€not€appliedÏin€ò òòòGatlinburg€Summitó óóó,€where€the€plaintiffs€were€erroneously€advised€by€one€of€their€attorneysÍas€to€the€length€of€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€In€our€view,€the€foregoing€legalÏpresumption€also€does€not€apply€to€the€question€of€whether€a€plaintiff€has€a€potential€cause€ofÏaction€against€a€particular€defendant.€€Such€a€question€invariably€implicates€both€legal€and€factualÏconsiderations,€and€it€is€for€the€determination€of€this€question€that€a€plaintiff€consults€and€reliesÏupon€an€attorney€in€the€first€instance.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€Carverððs€presumed€knowledgeÏof€the€90„day€limitations€period,€by€itself,€is€not€sufficient€to€insulate€Beck€from€liability€in€thisÏcase.ÌÌà àIn€her€answer€brief,€Beck€has€raised€an€additional€issue€as€to€whether€CarverÏPlumbingððs€recovery€should€be€limited€to€$2,000€in€the€event€that€its€suit€for€legal€malpractice€isÏsuccessful€on€remand.€€Inasmuch€as€the€trial€court€did€not€rule€on€this€issue,€we€decline€to€addressÏthis€issue€on€appeal.€€ð ðThis€court,€being€a€court€of€errors,€cannot€review€issues€not€presented€ò òòòandÏruled€uponó óóó€by€the€trial€court.ðð€€ò òòòKingv.€Now€Invs.,€Inc.ó óóó,€1987€WL€18891,€at€*2€(Tenn.ÏApp.€Oct.27,€1987)€(emphasis€added),€ò òòòperm.€app.€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€Feb.1,€1988);€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóóÏò òòòMoss€Hotel€Co.v.€Soil&€Material€Engððrs,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€03A01„9102„CV„00044,€1991€WLÏ96576,€at€*1€(Tenn.€App.€June10,€1991),€ò òòòperm.€app.€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€Feb.18,€1992).ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€order€granting€Beckððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€reversed,Ïand€this€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€taxed€to€Beck,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›Ì