ÿWPC° 2# ÌUN× %% 0G+U:rw@¬4ìBY 0Ja 0T« 0^ÿ 0h] 0rÅ 0|7 0†³ 09 1uÉ 0d> 0@¢ D3â B U>2 U*p B)š DCà AM AQS Ƥ 0cj 0DÍ D/ B@ ] v~_vÓݘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÅgÆ îÇÈÉgÊDËÌÓ€ÍÓ€Ù§aö"7P3|xÙC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3¢È$¢¢Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€XmäXXXÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMay€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ó  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€lþXXdðXXdð7Ñœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌCITICORP€MORTGAGE,€INC.,à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Chancery€No.€101815„1€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9608„CH„00196̜ـ*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|àz` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOHN€P.€ROBERTS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌœÌÌÌ›ÌÌò òR.€MARK€GLOVERÌMICHAEL€C.€PATTONÌBAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN,Ì€&€CALDWELL,€P.C.Ìó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òTIM€EDWARDSÌJAMES€F.€HORNERÌGLASSMAN,€JETER,€EDWARDSÌ&€WADE,€P.C.ó óÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌœÌÌ›ÌÌÌò òREVERSED€&€REMANDEDÌÌœÌÌÌ›Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìœ›ÓÓó óà àò ò€€ó óIn€this€legal€malpractice€case,€Citicorp€Mortgage,€Inc.€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€filed€suitÏagainst€Ñ7€mäXXdæXXdð7ÑWilburn€Johns€œ(ð ðJohnsðð);›€Maddox€&€Roberts,€a€Tennessee€partnership;ÏMichael€Maddox€(ð ðMaddoxðð);€John€œRoberts›€(ð ðRobertsðð);€and€Shelby€Bank€for€MaddoxððsÏfailure€to€make€Plaintiff€the€first€lienholder€on€a€certain€piece€of€property.€€This€appeal,Ïhowever,€focuses€exclusively€on€Plaintiffððs€claim€of€malpractice€against€Roberts.€€InÏgranting€summary€judgment€œin€favor€of›€Roberts€in€both€his€individual€and€partnershipÏcapacities€and€in€certifying€its€order€as€a€final€judgment€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï54.02,€the€trial€court€held€œthat›€Plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€was€barred€by€œthe€one„year›Ïstatute€of€limitations€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ28„3„104.€€Plaintiff€appeals€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏRoberts€because€Plaintiffððs€action€against€Roberts€is€not€barred€by€the€one„year€statuteÏof€limitations.›€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€courtÏbelow.Ìò òÌòŒòà@ àFACTSÌÌóŒóà àó óThis€appeal€centers€around€the€closing€of€a€real€estate€loan€for€a€certain€pieceÏof€property€located€at€4262€Poplar€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€œ(hereinafter€›€œð ðthe›Ïœpropertyðð).›€€The€closing€occurred€on€January€10,€1990.€€ÌÌà àJohns€was€the€owner€of€the€property.€€Plaintiff€was€the€lender€refinancing€theÏdebt€encumbering€the€property.€€Maddox€was€the€attorney€Plaintiff€retained€to€handleÏthe€closing,€and€Roberts€was€Maddoxððs€law€partner.€ÌÌà àMaddox€allegedly€committed€legal€malpractice€as€to€that€closing€when€he€didÏnot€ensure€€that€all€existing€liens€on€the€property€were€paid€and/or€released€so€thatÏPlaintiff€would€be€the€holder€of€the€first€lien€on€the€property.€€One€of€the€existing€liensÏon€the€property€was€a€lien€held€by€Shelby€Bank.€€As€part€of€the€closing€of€the€loan€onÏthe€property,€Plaintiff€instructed€Maddox€to€obtain€and€record€a€release€of€a€deed€ofÏtrust€benefitting€Shelby€Bank€(hereinafter€œð ðthe€Shelby›€Bank€lienðð).€€Contrary€toÏPlaintiffððs€instructions,€Maddox€never€executed€a€release€of€the€Shelby€Bank€lien.€ÏThus,€after€the€refinancing,€Shelby€Bank€held€the€first€lien€on€the€property,€superior€toÏPlaintiffððs€lien.€€ÌÌà àAfter€Johns€defaulted€on€his€indebtedness€to€Shelby€Bank€and€to€the€Plaintiff,ÏPlaintiff€initiated€foreclosure€proceedings€in€September€1991.€€In€October€1991,€DykeÏTatum,€the€attorney€representing€Plaintiff€on€the€foreclosure,€discovered€that€a€releaseÏof€the€Shelby€Bank€lien€had€not€been€filed.€€When€Tatum€contacted€Maddox,€MaddoxÍindicated€that€an€executed€release€of€the€Shelby€Bank€lien€existed.€€ÌÌà àIn€December€1991,€Shelby€Bank€foreclosed€on€its€deed€of€trust€and€sold€theÏproperty€to€satisfy€Johnsðð€indebtedness€to€it.€€The€foreclosure€wiped€out€the€PlaintiffððsÏlien.€€Ìà àIn€July€1992,€Plaintiff€retained€David€Cocke€to€determine€if€an€executed€releaseÏof€the€Shelby€Bank€lien€existed.€€On€July€22,€1992,€Cocke€sent€a€letter€to€MaddoxÏinquiring€about€the€unrecorded€Shelby€Bank€lien€release.€€On€August€5,€1992,€MaddoxÏstated€that€he€believed€a€release€of€the€Shelby€Bank€lien€existed€but€he€was€unable€toÏlocate€it€in€his€files.€ÌÌà àOn€August€14,€1992,€Plaintiff€filed€the€present€action.€€The€sole€basis€forÏPlaintiffððs€claims€against€Roberts€is€his€liability€as€Maddoxððs€partner€for€MaddoxððsÏœmalpractice.›ÌÌà àThe€applicable€dates€pertinent€to€this€appeal€œare:›ÌœÓÓJanuary›€10,€1990à àà àThe€closing€at€which€Maddox€failed€to€obtain€theÏà àà àà àà àà àrelease€of€the€Shelby€Bank€lien.€Ì€ÌJanuary€to€March€1990€€€€à àThe€audit€period€in€which€Plaintiffððs€auditors€should€haveÏà àà àà àà àdiscovered€the€absence€of€the€recorded€release€in€the€files.ÌÌSeptember€1991à àà àPlaintiffððs€foreclosure€begins.ÌÌOctober€1991à àà àPlaintiffððs€title€search€reveals€that€the€Shelby€Bank€lien€hasÏà àà àà àà ànot€been€released€of€record.Ìà àà àà àà àMaddox€tells€Dyke€Tatum€that€the€executed€release€exists.ÌÌDecember€1991à àà àShelby€Bank€forecloses€its€lien,€and€all€other€œliens,›Íincluding€the€à àà àà àà àPlaintiffððs€œlien,›€are€wiped€out.ÌÌJuly€1992à àà àà àœPlaintiff€employs›€David€Cocke€to€investigate€the€existenceÏof€an€à àà àà àà àexecuted€release€of€the€Shelby€Bank€lien.ÌÌAugust€1992à àà àà àMaddox€advises€Cocke€that€an€executed€release€of€theÏShelby€à àà àà àà àBank€lien€exists,€but€the€executed€release€is€notÏproduced.ÌÌAugust€14,€1992à àà àThe€complaint€is€filed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€appeal,€the€Plaintiff€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€PlaintiffððsÏaction€against€Roberts€is€barred€by€the€œone„year›€statute€of€limitations.€€PlaintiffÏcontends€that€œhis€cause€of€action›€did€not€accrue€until€December€1991€when€ShelbyÏBank€foreclosed€on€the€property,€wiping€out€the€Plaintiffððs€lien.ÌÌà@ àò òLAWó óÌà àò òÌó óà àThe€three€issues€before€this€Court€œare:›ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à1)›€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€œDefendant,›ÏJohn€œRobertsðð,›€motion€for€summary€judgment€holding€thatÏPlaintiffððs€claims€against€Roberts€are€barred€by€the€one€yearÏstatute€of€limitations€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„104.ÌÌà8 àœà8 à2)›€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€PlaintiffÏsustained€a€legally€cognizable€injury€in€January€1990;€andÌÌà8 àœà8 à3)›€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€theÏalleged€fraudulent€concealment€of€the€legal€malpractice€didÏnot€delay€the€accrual€of€Plaintiffððs€claim€against€theÏœDefendant,€Roberts.›Ìò òòòÌóóó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€standards€governing€our€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€action€on€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€are€œwell„settled.›€€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€ofÏlaw,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€taskÏis€confined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€œof€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€56›€have€been€met.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995);ÏòòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991);€œòòFoley›€v.ÏSt.€Thomas€Hosp.óó,€906€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòBrenner€v.€TextronÏAerostructures,€A€Division€of€Textron,€Inc.óó,€874€S.W.2d€579,€582€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€œÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.›€56.03€provides€that€summary€judgment€œis›€appropriate€œonly€where›€(1)Ïthere€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€inÏthe€motion,€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€theÏundisputed€facts.€€òòCarvellóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).€€TheÏmoving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€motion€satisfies€these€requirements.€ÏòòDownen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àWhile€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€not€a€substitute€for€trial,€it€goes€to€theÏmerits€of€the€complaint€and€should€not€be€taken€lightly.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210;ÏòòJones€v.€Home€Indem.€Ins.€Co.óó,€651€S.W.2d€213,€214€(Tenn.€1983);€òòFowler€v.€HappyÏGoodman€Familyóó,€575€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.€1978);€òòFoleyóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€452.€€It€hasÏbeen€repeatedly€stated€by€the€appellate€courts€of€this€state€that€the€purpose€of€aÏsummary€judgment€proceeding€is€not€the€finding€of€facts,€the€resolution€of€disputedÏfactual€issues€or€the€determination€of€conflicting€inferences€reasonably€to€be€drawnÍfrom€the€facts.€€òòBellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óó,€749€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.€1988).€€ÏRather,€the€purpose€of€summary€judgment€is€to€resolve€controlling€issues€of€law.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€evaluating€the€propriety€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€we€view€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€draw€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€A€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€should€only€be€granted€when€both€the€facts€and€the€conclusionsÏdrawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àAs€set€forth€œin€T.C.A.€ðððð€28„3„104›€(1980)€œand›€29„26„116(a)(1)€(1980),€theÏstatute€of€limitations€for€malpractice€actions€is€one€year.€€However,€in€the€event€that€theÏalleged€injury€is€not€discovered€within€the€stated€one„year€period,€the€limitationsÏperiod€is€one€year€from€the€date€œon›€which€the€plaintiff€discovers€his€or€her€injury.€ÏT.C.A.€œðð€29„26„116(a)(1)›€(1980).€€The€determination€of€when€a€legal€malpractice€causeÏof€action€accrues€for€statute€of€limitations€purposes€is,€therefore,€governed€by€a€specificÏformulation€of€the€ð ðdiscovery€ruleðð€applicable€to€such€actions.€€òòCarvellóó,€900€S.W.2d€atÏ26.€ÌÌà àIn€legal€malpractice€cases,€the€discovery€rule€is€composed€of€two€distinctÏelements:€(1)€the€plaintiff€must€suffer€an€injury€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððsÏnegligence;€and€(2)€the€plaintiff€must€have€known€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonableÏdiligence€should€have€known€that€this€injury€was€caused€by€the€defendantððsÏnegligence.€€òòCarvellóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€28;€òòSee€œalsoóó›€òòChambers€v.€Dillowóó,€713€S.W.2d€896Í(Tenn.€1986);€òòSecurity€Bank€&€Trust€Co.€v.€Fabricating,€Inc.óó,€673€S.W.2d€860€(Tenn.Ï1983);€òòAmeraccount€Club,€Inc.€v.€Hillóó,€617€S.W.2d€876€(Tenn.€1981);€òòCaledoniaÏLeasing€&€Equip.€Co.€v.€Armstrong,€Allen,€Braden,€Goodman,€McBride€&€Prewittóó,€865ÏS.W.2d€10,€13€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòBatchelor€v.€Heiskell,€Donelson,€Bearman,ÏAdams,€Williams€&€Kirschóó,€828€S.W.2d€388,€393€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€òòState€œex€rel.€Cardin€v.›€McClellanóó,€85€S.W.€267€œ(Tenn.›€1905),€the€defendant,€aÏregister€of€deeds,€failed€œcorrectly›€œto€register›€a€conveyance€of€land€made€by€vendor€toÏvendee.€€The€defendant€certified€that€the€deed€had€been€registered€in€a€certain€deedÏbook€in€his€office,€yet€the€description€of€the€land€conveyed€was€incorrectly€copied.€ÏDefendantððs€description€of€the€land€was€so€inaccurate€that€it€did€not€describe€any€land,Ïand€the€premises€conveyed€could€not€be€identified€from€an€inspection€of€the€defendantÏregisterððs€books.€€After€the€conveyance€of€land€from€vendor€to€vendee€and€theÏsubsequent€registration€of€the€land,€creditors€of€the€vendor€obtained€a€judgmentÏagainst€the€vendor€and€had€the€land€levied€upon€and€sold.€€Vendee€thereuponÏpurchased€the€land€a€second€time€in€order€to€protect€his€title€and€sued€the€defendantÏrecorder€for€the€œcost›€of€having€to€œrepurchase›€the€land.€€In€discussing€when€theÏvendeeððs€cause€of€action€accrued€against€the€defendant€register,€the€supreme€courtÏœstated:›ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[A]›€breach€may€not€inflict€any€immediate€wrong€on€anÏindividual,€but€neither€his€right€to€a€remedy,€nor€his€liabilityÏto€be€precluded€by€time€from€its€prosecution,€will€commenceÏuntil€he€has€suffered€some€actual€inconvenience.€.€.€it€mayÏbe€stated€as€an€invariable€rule€that€when€the€injury,Ïhowever€slight,€is€complete€at€the€time€of€the€act,€theÏstatutory€period€then€commences,€but,€when€the€act€is€notÍlegally€injurious€until€certain€consequences€occur,€the€timeÏcommences€to€run€from€the€consequential€damage.ÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€270.€€In€holding€that€œthe€vendeeððs›€cause€of€action€accrued€when€his€property€wasÏlevied€upon€and€not€when€defendant€negligently€failed€œcorrectly€to›€register€his€deed,Ïthe€€supreme€court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[The›€œvendee]›€was€not€injured€by€the€failure€to€correctlyÏregister€his€deed.€€It€was€good,€without€registration,€betweenÏhim€and€his€vendor€and€subsequent€purchasers€with€notice.€ÏIf€his€vendor€had€not€become€indebted,€or€if€he€had€paid€hisÏdebts,€it€is€probable€that€no€injury€would€have€happened.€€InÏother€words,€the€only€effect€of€the€registerððs€negligence€wasÏthat€complainantððs€deed€was€not€effectual€as€againstÏcreditors€or€subsequent€innocent€purchasers€from€hisÏgrantor.€€If€his€grantor€had€either€contracted€no€debts,€orÏpaid€them€himself,€so€far€as€appears€in€this€record,€theÏregisterððs€mistake€would€have€been€innocuous;€and,€asÏcomplainantððs€right€of€action,€both€at€common€law€andÏunder€the€statute,€depends€on€his€sustaining€injury€by€theÏofficerððs€breach€of€duty,€his€cause€of€action€could€not€andÏdid€not€accrue€until€his€property€was€levied€upon€andÏsubjected€to€the€payment€of€anotherððs€debt.€ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€273.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòPrater€v.€Fidelity€Trust€Co.óó,€34€S.W.2d€205€(Tenn.€1930),€Prater€procured€aÏmortgage€loan€of€œ$6,500›€from€the€Fidelity€Trust€Company€(ð ðTrust€Companyðð)€onÏproperty€already€encumbered€by€a€mortgage€securing€a€note€for€œ$5,000.›€€The€TrustÏCompany€and€Prater€both€knew€of€the€existence€of€the€mortgage,€and€it€wasÏunderstood€that€the€mortgage€note€was€to€be€paid€first€out€of€the€proceeds€of€the€loan.€ÏThe€Trust€Company€paid€the€mortgage€without€requiring€the€surrender€of€the€note,€andÏthe€note€later€turned€up€in€the€hands€of€an€innocent€purchaser.€€The€innocentÍpurchaser€thereafter€sued€Prater€for€the€value€of€the€note€and€recovered€the€œ$5,000›Ïvalue€of€the€note€plus€interest€from€Prater.€€œPrater€then€sued€the›€Trust€Company€for€theÏvalue€of€the€note,€œand€the€Trust€Company€raised€the€statute€of€limitations€as€a€defense.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€206.€€Relying€on€òòState€ex€rel.€Cardin€v.€McClellanóó,€85€S.W.€267€(Tenn.€1905),€the›Ïœsupreme›€œcourt›€held€that€œPraterððs€cause€of€action€against€the€Trust€Company€did€notÏaccrue€until€the€judgment€was€rendered€against€him€because€no€loss€to€PraterÏoccurred€until€the€rendition€of€the€adverse€judgment.›€€òòIdóó.€at€206.€€Thus,€the€TrustÏCompanyððs€negligent€failure€to€obtain€the€surrender€of€the€note€œand/or›€to€obtain€theÏextinguishment€of€the€lien€did€not€amount€to€an€injury€for€statute€of€limitation€purposes.ÌÌà àIn€òòAmeraccount€Club,€Inc.€v.€Hillóó,€617€S.W.2d€876€(Tenn.€1981),€the€plaintiffÏcorporation€hired€the€defendant€attorneys€to€register€œplaintiffððs›€service€mark€and€logoÏwith€the€United€States€Patent€Office.€€The€defendants€submitted€plaintiffððs€application€inÏDecember€œ1974›€and€learned€on€March€3,€œ1975›€that€the€application€was€incompleteÏdue€to€the€insufficient€number€of€copies€of€the€logo€that€had€been€submitted.€€On€MarchÏ13,€1975,€defendants€corrected€their€error€œby€submitting›€additional€copies€of€the€logoÏas€required.€€The€€Patent€Office€assigned€the€œlatter€date›€of€March€13,€œ1975›€as€the€filingÏdate€of€plaintiffððs€application.€€On€August€13,€1975,€the€Patent€Office€notified€theÏdefendants€that€an€application€for€registration€of€a€similar€logo€had€been€filed€onÏFebruary€28,€1975,€which€had€precedence€over€the€plaintiffððs€application.€€€AfterÏreceiving€this€information,€the€plaintiffððs€shareholders€concluded€at€a€shareholderððsÏmeeting€in€mid„August€that€the€defendants€had€been€negligent€in€handling€theÏregistration€of€plaintiffððs€logo.€€On€April€27,€1976,€the€Patent€Office€finally€refused€toÍregister€the€plaintiffððs€logo,€and€on€August€27,€1976,€the€plaintiff€sued€the€defendantsÏfor€legal€malpractice.€€In€discussing€when€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€for€legalÏmalpractice€accrued,€the€supreme€court€œstated€as€follows:›ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àThe›€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€holding€that€the€plaintiffððsÏcause€of€action€accrued€and€the€statute€of€limitations€beganÏto€run€when€the€plaintiff€became€aware€of€the€negligence€ofÏthe€defendant€attorneys;€still€more€is€required,€viz.,€damageÏor€injury€to€the€plaintiff€resulting€from€that€negligence.€.€.ÏAlthough€the€plaintiff€may€have€been€aware€of€theÏdefendant€attorneysðð€ð ðnegligenceðð€as€early€as€August€18,Ï1975,€or€September€2,€1975,€no€damage€or€injury€resultedÏto€the€plaintiff€by€reason€of€that€ð ðnegligenceðð€until€on€orÏabout€April€27,€1976,€when€the€United€States€Patent€OfficeÏrejected€plaintiffððs€application.ÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€œ878.€€Thus,€the€supreme€court€in€òòAmeraccountóó€held€that€the€plaintiffððs€cause€ofÏaction€for€legal€malpractice€did€not€accrue€until€April€27,€1976,€when€the€Patent€OfficeÏrejected€plaintiffððs€application.›ÌÌà àIn€òòSecurity€Bank€&€Trust€œCo.›€v.€Fabricating,€Inc.óó,€673€S.W.2d€860€(Tenn.€1983),Ïthe€plaintiffs,€who€were€representatives€of€a€class€of€bondholders€of€the€Town€of€GrandÏJunction,€Tennessee,€filed€suit€against€the€defendant€attorneys,€who€served€as€specialÏbond€counsel,€for€legal€malpractice€in€the€performance€of€their€duties€as€bond€counsel.€€ÏHalf€of€the€bonds€were€issued€in€October€1972€and€the€other€half€œof€the€bonds€were›Ïissued€in€November€1972.€€The€default€on€the€bonds€occurred€on€October€1,€1974.€€OnÏNovember€24,€1976,€Plaintiffs€filed€suit€for€legal€malpractice.€€Plaintiffs€alleged€that€theÏdefendant€attorneys€should€have€discovered€the€many€varied€deficiencies€of€the€bondÏœissue€in€question.›€€In€holding€that€plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€for€legal€malpracticeÏaccrued€not€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€negligent€act€by€the€defendant€attorneys€butÍrather€at€the€time€œof€default€on€the€bonds,›€the€supreme€court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àObviously,›€negligence€without€injury€is€not€actionable;Ïhence,€the€statute€of€limitations€could€not€begin€to€run€untilÏthe€attorneyððs€negligence€had€resulted€in€injury€to€theÏplaintiff.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€injury€to€the€bondholdersÏoccurred€on€October€1,€1974,€òòwhen€the€bonds€defaultedóó.€ÏThere€is€not€merit€whatever€in€the€plaintiffsðð€argument€thatÏtheir€injury€did€not€occur€until€the€suit€against€the€guarantorsÏin€Texas€was€concluded.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€œ864€(emphasis€in€original).›ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àœFinally,€in›€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€28€(Tenn.€1995),€the€plaintiffsÏsued€their€attorney€for€the€preparation€of€œa€defective›€warranty€deed.€€In€drafting€theÏwarranty€deed,€œdefendant›€specifically€œfailed€to€indicate›€the€existence€of€an€easement.€ÏA€closing€on€the€property€later€occurred,€and€plaintiffs€transferred€the€defectiveÏwarranty€deed€to€the€purchaser€of€the€property.€€Over€four€years€after€the€sale€of€theÏproperty,€purchaser€sued€the€plaintiffs€for€breach€of€warranty€of€good€title€because€theÏdeed€did€not€disclose€the€existence€of€the€easement.€€€Purchaser€recovered€aÏjudgment€of€œ$15,000›€against€the€plaintiffs.€€Plaintiffs€thereafter€brought€a€malpracticeÏaction€against€their€attorney,€the€defendant.€€In€holding€that€œplaintiffððs›€cause€of€actionÏfor€legal€malpractice€accrued€when€the€purchaser€sued€the€œplaintiffs,›€the€supremeÏcourt€stated€that€the€œplaintiffs›€suffered€actual€injury€when€œthe€plaintiffs›€were€forced€toÏdefend€their€deed€in€court.€€Thus,€once€again,€€the€œplaintiffsðð›€cause€of€action€accruedÏnot€when€the€negligent€act€was€committed,€but€rather€when€the€consequential€injuryÏfrom€the€negligent€act€occurred.ÌÌà àIn€œaccordance€with€the€foregoing€authorities,€Plaintiff,€in€the€present€case,€didÏnot€suffer€an€actual€injury€until€Shelby€Bank€foreclosed€upon€its€lien,€thereby€wipingÏout€all€other€liens,€including€the€Plaintiffððs€lien.€€Before€Shelby€Bankððs€foreclosure,ÏPlaintiff€had€not€suffered€an›€œinjury›€as€a€result€of€Maddoxððs€negligent€failure€to€retain€aÏrelease€of€the€Shelby€Bank€lien.€œ€Although€Maddox€committed€the€negligent€act€inÏJanuary€1990,€this€act€did€not€become€legally€injurious€until€certain€consequencesÏoccurred,€i.e.€when€Shelby€Bank€foreclosed€upon€its€lien€in€December€1991.€€›€If€œJohnsÏhad›€paid€Shelby€Bank,€as€he€agreed€to€do,€Plaintiff€would€not€have€suffered€œany€injury›Ïfrom€Maddoxððs€negligent€act.€€€Thus,€because€Plaintiff€filed€this€cause€of€action€withinÏone€year€of€the€date€of€œhis€injury,›€Plaintiffððs€present€action€for€legal€malpractice€is€notÏbarred€by€the€applicable€œone„year›€statute€of€œlimitations.ÌÌà àBecause€of€our€disposition€of€the€foregoing€issue,€we€need€not€address€theÏremaining€issues€on€appeal.€›ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€œreversed€as€to€the€Defendant€both€inÏhis€individual€and€partnership€capacities,€and€the€matter€is€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€further€proceedings.›€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€œ€Defendant›€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›