ÿWPCÿ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , B4 v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ 0d[ U *¿ B)é DC AMU×¢ Byv~–vÓ D3ç 0@ AOZÆ© 0Do D/³ Bâ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ [U\D]D^U`UaUb•cDdÓ€pz!3|xpC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctober€15,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ7€ôXXdædÈ7Ñ›Ñ\R AØ'\Ñœ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌCITY€STATE€BANKà àà àà à)Ìand€THE€BANK€OF€SHARONà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€51213„6€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9504„CV„00073ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|ZO` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDEAN€WITTER€REYNOLDS,€INC.,à à)Ìa€Delaware€Corporation,€andà àà à)ÌHANK€FRANCK,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€H.€BROWN,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌò òœDOUGLAS€A.€BLACKÌTHOMAS€J.€WALSH,€JR.ó ó›Ìò òœWOLFF€ARDIS,€P.C.ó ó›ÌœMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantsÌÌÌ›Ìò òœEDWARD€M.€KAPLANó ó›Ìò òœNATHANIEL€L.€PROSSERó ó›Ìò òœARMSTRONG€ALLEN€PREWITTÌGENTRY€JOHNSTON€&€HOLMESÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌ›Ìò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌœÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Sp.€J.ó óà àœÌÓÓà àThis›€is€an€interlocutory€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€partial€summaryÏÑ7€ôXXdæXXdæ7Ñjudgment€in€favor€of€defendants€on€the€basis€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€primaryÏissue€for€our€determination€is€whether€there€exists€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€withÏrespect€to€when€the€plaintiff€banks€discovered€or€reasonably€should€have€discoveredÏtheir€cause€of€action€against€defendants.€€We€hold€that€this€issue€was€inappropriate€forÏresolution€by€summary€judgment€and,€therefore,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€courtÏbelow.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌà àÌà àThe€plaintiffs,€City€State€Bank€and€The€Bank€of€Sharon,€are€small€communityÏbanks€located€in€Weakley€County,€Tennessee.€€Both€banks€are€owned€by€a€holdingÏcompany,€Sharon€Bancshares,€Inc.€€At€all€times€pertinent€hereto,€John€Clark€served€asÏpresident€and€chief€executive€officer€of€the€holding€company.€€He€also€served€as€theÏinvestment€officer€for€City€State€Bank.€€Clarkððs€responsibilities€included€managing€theÏday„to„day€operations€of€the€holding€company€and€making€investment€decisions€forÍthe€banks.€€ÌÌà àDefendant,€Hank€Franck,€is€a€licensed€securities€professional€who€wasÏemployed€at€Duncan€Williams,€Inc.€from€1982€until€1989.€While€employed€at€DuncanÏWilliams,€Franck€sold€securities€offered€by€Duncan€Williams€to€Clark.€€Effective€July€3,Ï1989,€Franck€resigned€from€Duncan€Williams€and€began€working€for€defendant€DeanÏWitter€Reynolds,€Inc.,€a€national€securities€broker/dealer.€ÌÌà àTwo€days€after€joining€Dean€Witter,€Franck€called€Clark€in€order€to€solicit€theÏbanksðð€purchase€of€the€ð ðMemphis€bonds.ðð€€Clark€described€the€July€5,€1989,Ïconversation€in€relevant€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA.€He€[Franck]€contacted€me€by€telephone....Some€commentÏabout€general€market€conditions,€interest€rates,€and€thatÏtype€of€conversation€that€I€had€with€him€then€and€the,€eitherÏhe€asked€or€I€told€him€that€we€did€have€some€funds€forÏinvestment.€€He€offered€the€securities€I€purchased€that€day,Ïwhich€were€some€of€the€Memphis€securities.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 àA.€He€offered€for€sale€some€investments€that€day.€€TheÏMemphis€bonds€or€a€block€of€the€Memphis€bonds....IÏquestioned€him€about€those€bonds....Ìà8 àà8 àA.€I€told€him€that...we€were€a€conservative€bank,€we€had€toÏhave€only,€we€did€not€want€anything€with€any€credit€riskÏinvolved.€€He€offered€a€block€of€the€Memphis€bonds.€€IÏquestioned€him€about€the€status€of€those€bonds,€theÏcollateral€behind€them.€€He€indicated€that€they€wereÏsecured€by€mortgages€there€in€the€Memphis€area.€ÏIndicated€the,€also€the€guarantee€by€a€large€insuranceÏcompany....ÌÌÓ  Ó*€€€€*€€€€*€€€€*à@ àÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 àA.€His€words€clearly€indicated€that€these€were€MemphisÏbonds,€that€these,€the€primary€security€for€these€bonds€wereÏmortgages€in€Memphis,€œTennessee.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ›à àClark€agreed€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€banks€to€purchase€the€Memphis€bonds€forÏ$192,560.00,€plus€accrued€interest.€Clark€testified€that€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏconversation,€his€understanding€of€the€purchase€of€the€Memphis€bonds€was€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMy€understanding€was€that€loans€had€been€made€in€theÏMemphis€area€for€housing€and€that€the€primary€source€ofÏrepayment€for€these€bonds€would€be€from€the€repayment€ofÏthose€mortgages.€€I€guess€a€secondary€source€of€repaymentÏwould€be€if€the€people€didnððt€pay€their€mortgages,€theÏproperties€would€be€sold€to€repay€the€bonds.€€And€then€IÏwould€consider€it€a€third€source€of€collateral€was€aÏguarantee€by€a€large€insurance€company.€ÌœÌ›ÌÌÓÓà àOn€or€about€July€12,€1989,€Franck€again€called€Clark€to€solicit€additionalÏpurchases€of€the€Memphis€bonds.€€Clark€declined€to€purchase€more€Memphis€bonds,Ïstating€that€he€did€not€want€to€put€ð ðtoo€many€eggs€in€one€basket.ðð€€Franck€thenÏsuggested€to€Clark€that€he€purchase€the€ð ðAdams€County€bondsðð€and€the€ð ðSoutheastÏTexas€bonds.ðð€Franck€allegedly€stated€that€the€Adams€County€bonds€were€€used€toÏfund€agricultural€and€commercial€development,€were€collateralized€by€mortgages,€andÏwere€guaranteed€by€a€large€insurance€company.€€He€portrayed€the€Southeast€TexasÏbonds€as€housing€bonds€that€would€be€repaid€by€mortgages.€€Clark€purchased€bothÏthe€Adams€County€bonds€and€the€Southeast€Texas€bonds€on€behalf€of€the€banks€for€aÏtotal€price€of€$436,045.50,€plus€accrued€interest.€€In€late€July€1989,€Clark€purchasedÍthe€ð ðEl€Paso€bonds,ðð€which€Franck€stated€were€housing€bonds€secured€by€mortgagesÏand€guaranteed€by€a€large€insurance€company,€and€more€Memphis€bonds,€for€a€totalÏprice€of€$679,000.20.€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€July€transactions,€Clark€requested€copies€of€the€originalÏprospectuses€for€each€of€the€bonds.€€Franck€furnished€the€prospectuses€to€Clark€inÏNovember€1989.€After€receiving€the€prospectuses,€Clark€made€another€purchase€ofÏMemphis€bonds€on€November€30,€1989.€€€Although€Clark€made€additional€bondÏpurchases,€only€the€July€purchases€and€the€November€purchase€are€at€issue€in€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà àOn€their€face,€the€bonds€appeared€to€be€traditional€housing€or€industrialÏrevenue€bonds,€which€are€considered€to€be€conservative€and€relatively€low„risk.€ÏHowever,€the€bond€proceeds€were€not€used€for€the€purpose€of€funding€housingÏprojects.€€Instead,€immediately€upon€the€bondsðð€issuance,€all€of€the€proceeds€wereÏtransferred€to€Executive€Life€Insurance€Co.€of€California€(ð ðExecutive€Lifeðð).€€ExecutiveÏLife€used€the€bond€proceeds€to€purchase€ð ðjunk€bonds,ðð€a€high„risk€type€of€security.€ÌœÌ›à àOn€or€about€January€25,€1990,€Clark€read€an€article€that€stated€that€StandardÏand€Poor€had€lowered€its€credit€rating€on€the€subject€bonds.€The€article€also€stated€thatÏthe€bond€proceeds€had€been€invested€with€Executive€Life€and€had€not€been€used€toÏacquire€mortgages.€€On€or€about€the€same€date,€Clark€began€receiving€reportsÏcontaining€negative€information€about€the€bonds.€Several€articles€subsequentlyÍappeared€in€the€Memphis€newspaper,€which€disclosed€that€the€bond€issuances€wereÏnot€used€for€their€intended€purpose,€but€rather,€were€invested€in€Executive€Life,€whichÏin€turn€purchased€junk€bonds.€€Ìà àAn€article€entitled€ð ðòòWho€Got€Killed€by€Executive€Life?óóðð€appeared€in€FÔ€ ôÔORTUNEÔ€ XÔÏmagazine€that€described€the€events€surrounding€the€eventual€disclosure€of€the€trueÏnature€of€the€bonds.€€The€article€reported:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àHundreds€of€investors,€including€charities,€retirees,€andÏwidows,€put€$1.85€billion€into€what€they€thought€wereÏconservative€municipal€bonds.€€They€were€wrong...IssuedÏby€public€finance€authorities€in€Colorado,€Louisiana,ÏNebraska,€Tennessee,€and€Texas...these€munis€wereÏsupposed€to€finance€cheap€loans€to€farmers,€helpÏdevelopers€put€up€affordable€housing€for€low„incomeÏfamilies,€and€serve€other€socially€useful€purposes....ButÏvirtually€all€the€money€raised...ended€up€not€in€low„costÏloans€but€in€guaranteed€investment€contracts...sold€byÏExecutive€Life....Though€marketed€as€a€way€to€help€yourÏneighbors€and€provide€a€haven€for€your€savings,€theseÏmunis€were€never€more€than€junk€bonds€tarted€up€in€red,Ïwhite,€and€blue€bunting€borrowed€from€City€Hall....The€muniÏinvestors€are€furious.€€Many€say€that€they€had€no€idea€theirÏmoney€was€ending€up€in€the€Executive€Life€junk€pile€untilÏMarch€1990.€€Thatððs€when€S€&€P€finally€lowered€the€ratingsÏon€all€muni€issues€to€reflect€the€junk€behind€them,€and€theÏbondsðð€trading€value€dropped€nearly€as€fast€as€theÏbondholdersðð€jaws....so€far,€18€lawsuits€covering€all€theÏmuni€issues€have€been€filed....ÌÌTerence€P.€Pare,€òòWho€Got€Killed€by€Executive€Life?€óóFÔ€ ôÔORTUNEÔ€ XÔ,€May€20,€1991,€at€110„11.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiff€banks€alleged€that€they€lost€more€than€$1.6€million€on€the€bonds.€ÏOn€January€15,€1993,€the€banks€filed€a€complaint€against€Dean€Witter€and€Franck,Ïalleging€fraud,€negligent€misrepresentation,€negligence,€breach€of€contract,€breach€ofÍfiduciary€duty,€and€seeking€compensatory€damages€in€the€amount€of€$2,404,720.70.ÏThe€complaint€related€to€18€transactions.€€The€11€transactions€at€issue€in€this€appealÏinvolved€the€Memphis€bonds,€the€Adams€County€bonds,€the€Southeast€Texas€bonds,Ïand€the€El€Paso€bonds.€€With€respect€to€these€four€bonds,€the€plaintiffs€alleged€thatÏdefendants€solicited€their€purchase€of€the€bonds€by€misrepresenting€their€status€asÏmunicipal€bonds€issued€to€finance€housing€and€industrial€projects,€which€is€a€relativelyÏsafe€form€of€investment.€ÌÌà àDefendants€moved€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€the€basis€that€the€ten€JulyÏ1989€purchases€were€barred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€because€plaintiffsÏreasonably€should€have€discovered€their€cause€of€action€in€November€1989€by€virtueÏof€the€bond€prospectus€materials€that€were€given€to€them.€As€to€the€November€1989Ïpurchase,€defendants€contended€that€the€plaintiffsðð€reliance€on€any€allegedÏrepresentation€was€not€reasonable€as€a€matter€of€law€due€to€the€prospectusÏinformation€in€their€possession.€ÌÌà àTo€the€extent€pertinent€here,€the€trial€court€granted€partial€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€defendants€as€to€the€July€1989€transactions€and€the€November€1989Ïtransaction.€€In€a€letter€to€both€partiesðð€counsel,€the€trial€judge€explained€his€reasons€forÏgranting€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€question€for€the€Court€is€whether€or€not€it€(the€particularÏprospectus)€clearly€communicated€to€a€person€of€Mr.€ClarkððsÏstation€what€it€purported€to€convey....The€Court€finds€thatÏPlaintiffððs€claims€are€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€property....The€ððdiscovery€ruleðð€does€not€saveÍPlaintiffððs€cause€of€action€because€ððthe€statute€is€tolled€onlyÏduring€the€period€when€the€plaintiff€had€no€knowledge€at€allÏthat€the€wrong€had€occurred€òòandóó,€as€a€reasonable€person,Ïwas€not€put€on€inquiry€notice.ðð€€(òòPotts€v.€Celotex€Corp.óó,€796ÏS.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€1980)(emmphasis€[sic]€added).€ÏPlaintiff€was€put€on€inquiry€notice€when€Plaintiff€received€theÏprospectuses€for€each€of€the€bond€investments€onÏNovember€28,€1989.€€Plaintiff€had€the€knowledge€at€hand€inÏthe€form€of€the€prospectuses€to€determine€whetherÏDefendant€Franckððs€statements€conflicted€with€disclosuresÏin€the€prospectuses.€€ÌÌÌà àIt€is€from€this€judgment€that€plaintiffs€appeal.ÌÌà@ àÌÌÓ  Óò òISSUESÌó óÌÌà àÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àPlaintiffs€have€raised€the€following€issues€for€our€consideration:€(1)€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€granting€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€ofÏwhether€plaintiffs€exercised€reasonable€diligence€to€discover€their€cause€of€action;€(2)Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€whetherÏplaintiffs€reasonably€relied€on€defendantsðð€representations;€(3)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€dismissing€plaintiffsðð€complaint€òòsua€sponteóó€on€grounds€that€it€failed€to€pleadÏfraud€with€particularity;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€theÏbanks€to€complete€discovery.€ÌÌ€à àWe€will€not€address€plaintiffsðð€fourth€issue€regarding€discovery,€as€we€haveÏelected€to€reverse€the€judgment€below€on€alternate€grounds.€ÌÌÓ  Óà àò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWÌà àÌÓ  Óà àó óOur€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÏòòde€novoóó,€with€no€accompanying€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995)ò ò€ó óÌÌà àPursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56,€summary€judgment€is€proper€when€theÏpleadings,€affidavits,€depositions,€or€admissions€establish€that€there€is€no€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw.€ò ò€òòó óByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€As€summarized€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòCarvellóó:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[S]ummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€isÏno€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevantÏto€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion;€and€(2)€theÏmoving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€onÏthe€undisputed€facts.ÌÌ900€S.W.2d€at€26€(internal€citations€omitted).ÌÌÌà àà àÌÓÓà àIn€assessing€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€for€purposes€of€determining€theÏpropriety€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€this€court€must€view€the€evidence€in€aÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party€and€draw€all€inferences€from€factualÏaverments€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party.€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€in€òòByrdóó€acknowledged€theÏutility€of€the€summary€judgment€procedure,€but€cautioned€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[a]ppropriate€application€of€the€Rule€is€more€likely€to€beÏachieved€if€litigants€and€courts€alike€keep€in€mind€that€theÏpurpose€of€a€summary€judgment€proceeding€is€not€theÍfinding€of€facts,€the€resolution€of€disputed€material€facts,€orÏthe€determination€of€conflicting€inferences€reasonably€to€beÏdrawn€from€these€facts.€€ððThe€purpose€is€to€resolveÏcontrolling€issues€of€law,€and€that€alone.ðð€€ÌÌòòId.óó€at€216€(quoting€òòBellamy€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óó,€749€S.W.2d€31,€33€(Tenn.Ï1988)).€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òPOSITIONS€OF€THE€PARTIESó óÌÌà àÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiffsðð€primary€contention€is€that€the€issues€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€areÏinherently€factual€and€are,€therefore,€inappropriate€for€resolution€by€summaryÏjudgment.€€Whether€the€banks€reasonably€should€have€discovered€their€cause€ofÏaction€and€whether€their€reliance€on€defendantsðð€representations€was€reasonableÏshould€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.ÌÌà àConversely,€defendants€argue€that€the€prospectuses€sent€to€plaintiffs€inÏNovember€1989€evinced€a€clear€conflict€between€Franckððs€alleged€oralÏrepresentations€and€the€prospectuses.€€According€to€defendants,€this€conflict€operatedÏto€put€plaintiffs€on€inquiry€notice€regarding€the€July€purchases€and€to€negate€anyÏelement€of€reasonable€reliance€as€to€the€November€30,€1989€purchase.€€BecauseÏplaintiffs€did€not€file€suit€until€January€15,€1993,€the€three„year€statute€of€limitationsÏbars€plaintiffs'€claims.€ÌÌà àDefendants€assert€that€the€prospectuses€expressly€stated€that€largeÏpercentages€of€each€bond€would€be€invested€with€Executive€Life.€€Defendants€haveÍdirected€us€to€the€following€excerpts€from€the€prospectuses:€ÌÓÓà8 àFrom€the€Adams€County€Bond€prospectus:ÌÌà8 àà8 àUse€of€bond€proceeds:.....€The€balance€of€the€net€proceedsÏof€the€bonds€will€be€used€to€make€a€$150,000.00€deposit€toÏthe€Bond€Service€Reserve€Fund.ÌÌà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*ÌÌà8 àà8 àSecurity€for€the€bonds:.....Pending€disbursement,€if€any,€ofÏBond€proceeds...payment€of€principal€of€and€interest€on€theÏBonds€will€be€payable€solely€from€moneys€derived€from€theÏguaranteed€investment€contract€purchased€from€ExecutiveÏLife€Insurance€Company....(Appendix€to€Appellantsðð€Brief€p.Ï103)ÌÌà àFrom€the€El€Paso€Bond€prospectus:ÌÌà8 àà8 àUse€of€Bond€Proceeds...The€net€proceeds€of€the€Bonds€willÏbe€(1)€deposited€in€an€Investment€Agreement€and€SingleÏFunding€Deposit€Agreement€(the€ððInvestment€Agreementðð)Ïwith€Executive€Life€Insurance€Company€(the€ð ðInvestmentÏAgreement€Providerðð)€and€will€be€available€to€be€used€(i)€toÏmake€Mortgage€Loans€to€finance€multifamily€housing,€andÏ(ii)€to€enter€into€certain€Repurchase€Obligations,€(2)€used€toÏfund€a€Bond€Service€Reserve€Fund€in€an€amount€equal€toÏthe€Required€Reserve....ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€support€of€their€position€that€the€prospectuses€should€not€be€deemed€to€haveÏplaced€them€on€inquiry€notice,€plaintiffs€point€out€that€the€first€page€of€the€MemphisÏBond€prospectus€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò8.68%€Securitized€Multifamily€Housing€RevenueÏBondsó óÌÌà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Bonds€are€being€issued€by€The€Health,€EducationalÏand€Housing€Facility€Board€of€the€City€of€Memphis,ÍTennessee€(a)€to€provide€funds€to€purchase...certainÏMortgage€Purchase€Agreements...from€mortgage€lendingÏinstitutions€certain€mortgage€loans€(the€ð ðMortgage€loansðð)Ïmade€to€finance€or€refinance€multifamily€housing€facilitiesÏfor€persons€of€low€and/or€moderate€income,€and/or€elderlyÏpersons,€and/or€handicapped€persons€(individually,€eachÏð ðProjectðð,€collectively,€the€ð ðProjectsðð)€in€Tennessee,€withÏeach€Mortgage€Loan€being€secured€either€by€a€separateÏletter€of€credit€.€.€.€effectively€guarantying€payment€of€allÏprincipal€of€and€interest€on€such€Mortgage€Loan...€(b)€toÏprovide€funds€to€enter€into€certain€repurchaseÏobligations...with€certain€national€banks,€with€the€BondÏproceeds€received€by€such€banks€being€used€by€the€banksÏto€make€Mortgage€Loans€to€finance€or€refinance€ProjectsÏand...make€deposits€to€certain€funds,€including€a€€BondÏService€Reserve€Fund...€ÌÌSimilarly,€the€prospectus€for€the€Southeast€Texas€Bonds€is€entitled:ÌÌà8 àà8 àò ò8.6%€Securitized€Multifamily€Housing€RevenueÏBondsÌÌó óà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àThe€Bonds€are€being€issued€by€The€Southeast€TexasÏHousing€Finance€Corporation...(a)€to€make€direct€loans€toÏdevelopers€for€the€purpose€of€financing€the€acquisition,Ïconstruction,€improvement€and€equipping€of,€or€theÏrefinancing€of€mortgage€loans€on,€certain€multifamily€rentalÏhousing€facilities...which€are€intended€for€occupancy€byÏpersons€of€low€or€moderate€income...and€the€payment€ofÏprincipal€and€interest€on€each€of€such€Multifamily€MortgageÏLoans€shall€be€secured€either€by€a€separate€letter€ofÏcredit...or€a€guaranty...issued€by€a€financial€institution...(b)€toÏprovide€funds€to€enter€in€to€certain€repurchaseÏagreements...with€certain€financial€institutions,€with€theÏBond€proceeds€received€by€such€financial€institutions€beingÏused€to€fund€certain€mortgage€loans€made€for€the€purposeÏof€financing€the€acquisition,€construction,€improvement€andÏequipping€of,€or€the€refinancing€of€mortgage€loans€onÏcertain€multifamily€rental€housing€facilities...(c)€to€fund€aÏBond€Service€Reserve€Fund,€and€(d)€to€pay€the€costs€ofÏissuing€the€Bonds....ÌÌThe€Adams€County,€Colorado€bond€prospectus€provides:ÌÌà8 àà8 àò ò9%€Industrial€Development€Revenue€BondsÌÌà àà àó ó*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àThe€Bonds€are€being€issued€by€Adams€County,ÏColorado...to€provide€funds€to€make€loans...to€certainÏagricultural,€manufacturing,€industrial,€commercial€orÏbusiness€enterprises€pursuant€to€certain€LoanÏAgreements...to€finance€any€land,€building€or€otherÏimprovement€and€real€or€personal€properties€suitable€orÏused€for€or€in€connection€with€any€manufacturing,€industrial,Ïcommercial,€agricultural€or€business€enterprise...in€AdamsÏCounty,€Colorado,€with€each€Loan€being€secured€either€byÏa€separate€letter€of€credit...or,€under...a€guaranty...effectivelyÏguarantying€payment€of€all€principal€of€and€interest€on€suchÏLoan....ÌÌFinally,€the€first€page€of€the€El€Paso€prospectus€describes€the€bonds€as€œfollows:Ì›Ìà8 àà8 àò ò8.88%€SECURITIZED€MULTIFAMILY€HOUSINGÏREVENUE€BONDSó óÌà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àThe€Bonds€are€being€issued€by€El€Paso€Housing€FinanceÏCorporation...(a)€to€provide€funds€to€make€mortgageÏloans...to€certain€developers€pursuant€to€certain€LoanÏAgreements...to€finance€or€refinance€multifamily€residentialÏrental€developments€for€persons€of€low€or€moderateÏincome...in€the€City€of€El€Paso,€Texas,€with€each€MortgageÏLoan€being€secured€either€by€a€separate€letter€of€credit...orÏa€guaranty...effectively€guaranteeing€payment€of€allÏprincipal€of€and€interest€on€such€Mortgage€Loan....Ìà8 àà8 àÌÌà àÓÓà àOur€task€is€to€examine€the€record€in€order€to€determine€whether€thereÏexists€an€issue€of€material€fact€as€to:€(1)€€whether€the€prospectuses€should€have€placedÏplaintiffs€on€inquiry€notice€of€their€cause€of€action,€and€(2)€€whether€there€existed€aÏsufficient€conflict€between€the€alleged€oral€representations€and€the€prospectuses€toÏplace€plaintiffs€on€inquiry€notice.Ìò òà@ àÌà@ àSTATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSó óÌà àÌà àThe€parties€concede€that€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€for€property€tortsÏapplies€to€the€present€case.€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105€(Supp.€1995).€€A€cause€of€actionÏaccrues€under€the€statute€when€a€plaintiff€discovers,€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonableÏcare€and€diligence,€should€have€discovered,€his€injury€and€the€cause€thereof.€€òòPotts€v.ÏCelotex€Corp.óó,€796€S.W.2d€678€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€statute€is€tolled€only€during€thatÏperiod€of€time€when€the€plaintiff€had€no€actual€knowledge€of€the€wrong€and,€as€aÏreasonable€person,€was€not€placed€on€inquiry€notice.€€òòId.óó€at€680„81.€€Ordinarily,€theÏquestion€of€whether€a€plaintiff€€knew€or€should€have€known€that€a€cause€of€actionÏexisted€is€a€question€of€fact,€inappropriate€for€summary€judgment.€€òòPrescott€v.€Adamsóó,Ï627€S.W.2d€134,€139€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€ÌÌà àAlthough€Tennessee€cases€have€held€to€the€contrary,€there€is€ample€authorityÏfor€the€proposition€that€whether€a€plaintiff€discovered,€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonableÏdiligence,€should€have€discovered€an€injury€resulting€from€a€defendant's€act€creates€aÏgenuine€issue€of€fact,€precluding€disposition€by€summary€judgment.€€òòCaledoniaÏLeasing€and€Equip.€Co.€v.€Armstrong,€Allen,€Braden,€Goodman,€McBride€&€Prewittóó,€865ÏS.W.2d€10,€18€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòNat'l€Mortgage€Co.€v.€Washingtonóó,€744€S.W.2d€574,Ï580€(Tenn.€App.€1987);€òòGosnell€v.€Ashland€Chem.€Inc.óó,€674€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984).€€As€the€court€stated€in€òòNational€Mortgageóó,€"Whether€any€kind€of€behaviorÏconforms€to€a€legal€standard€of€reasonable€conduct€is€a€mere€fact€question€for€the€jury,Ïand€not€a€question€of€law."€€774€S.W.2d€at€580.€€Similarly,€this€court€stated€inÍòòHathaway€v.€Middle€Tennessee€Anesthesiology,€P.C.óó,€724€S.W.2d€355€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986),€"The€question€of€whether€due€diligence€under€the€circumstances€required...anyÏother€particular€form€of€investigation€is€properly€a€question€for€the€trier€of€fact€afterÏhearing€all€of€the€evidence,€rather€than€a€question€of€law€to€be€determined€by€summaryÏjudgment€based€upon€the...record."€€òòId.óó€at€360.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€the€prospectuses€would€have€alerted€a€reasonableÏinvestor€to€problems€with€the€bonds,€the€prospectuses€must€be€examined€as€a€whole,Ïrather€than€in€a€selective€fashion.€€The€pertinent€inquiry€is€not€whether€a€particularÏstatement,€taken€separately,€would€have€alerted€a€reasonable€investor,€but€whetherÏthe€prospectuses,€taken€€in€the€aggregate€and€in€context,€would€have€triggered€a€dutyÏof€inquiry€on€the€part€of€a€reasonable€investor.ÌÌà àIn€opposition€to€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€plaintiffs€profferedÏthe€affidavit€of€Samuel€Lee€Bowman,€III,€a€licensed€securities€professional,€in€whichÏBowman€stated€that€the€prospectuses€would€not€have€placed€a€reasonable€investor€onÏnotice€that€the€bonds€were€not€what€they€appeared€to€be.€€As€herein€relevant,€BowmanÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à7.€In€my€experience€commercial€bankers,€and€especiallyÏthose€who€serve€in€community€banks,€rarely€qualify€asÏsophisticated€investors.€€Typically,€an€officer€in€a€communityÏbank€is€responsible€for€multiple€functions€of€the€bank;Ïtherefore,€it€is€simply€not€possible€for€a€typical€communityÏbanker€to€gather€enough€information€to€manage€a€bankððsÏinvestment€portfolio€without€relying€on€advice€andÏinformation€supplied€by€securities€brokers/dealers,€such€asÏDean€Witter€Reynolds,€Inc.€€Based€on€my€knowledge€andÍexperience,€commercial€bankers€are€not€generally€capableÏof€establishing€a€market€level€at€which€a€security€is€fairlyÏpriced,€and€cannot,€on€their€own,€reasonably€discern€theÏmaterial€risks€of€a€particular€security€without€the€aid€of€anÏinvestment€professional.€€In€my€expert€opinion,€based€on€myÏreview€of€the€deposition€testimony€of€John€C.€Clark,€Mr€[sic]ÏClark€is€a€typical€community€banker.Ìà8 àà8 à8.€The€absence€of€sophistication€on€the€part€of€commercialÏbankers€was€particularly€evident€with€respect€to€the€typeÏbonds€at€issue€in€this€case,€that€is,€taxable€municipal€bondÏissues€supported€by€guaranteed€insurance€contractsÏ(GICS).€To€my€knowledge,€these€securities€first€appearedÏon€the€market€in€or€about€1986.€€These€securities€were€notÏwell€known€to€the€investing€public,€and€on€their€face,€theyÏappeared€to€the€reasonable€investor€to€be€another,€familiarÏtype€of€security„„the€housing€or€industrial€revenue€bond.Ìà8 àà8 à9.€Because€the€taxable€municipal€bonds€are€that€the€subjectÏof€this€case,€including€the€bonds€referred€to€in€this€action€as:ÏThe€Memphis€Bonds,€The€Adams€County€Bonds,€TheÏSoutheastern€HFC€Bonds€and€The€El€Paso€Bonds€wereÏissued€through€public€facility€agencies,€they€appeared€to€beÏsimilar€to€tax„free€issues€well€known€to€the€public;€the€latterÏwere€structured€for€legitimate€public€purposes€such€as€toÏgenerate€loans€for€housing,€agricultural€and€industrialÏprojects.€€However,€as€indicated,€ò òthe€municipal€bonds€atÏissue€in€this€case€were€not€as€they€appeared€to€aÏreasonable€investor,€even€were€that€reasonableÏinvestor€to€review€the€prospectuses€that€wereÏissued€in€connection€therewithó ó.€€Rather€than€beingÏissued€for€legitimate€public€purposes,€primarily€for€theÏmaking€of€loans€for€housing€projects€and/or€agricultural€orÏindustrial€enterprises,€it€is€highly€unlikely€that€these€bondsÏcould€have€generated€loans€for€any€purpose,€due€toÏconsiderations€of€economic€feasibility.Ìà8 àà8 à10.€By€1988€it€was€widely€known€among€professionals€inÏthe€securities€industry,€though€not€to€reasonable€investorsÏin€the€public€at€large,€that€these€taxable€municipal€bondÏissues€were€being€used€to€funnel€monies€to€Executive€LifeÏInsurance€Company€for€the€purpose€of€buying€ð ðjunk€bonds,ððÏan€extremely€high€risk€form€of€security.€€By€1988€securitiesÏbroker/dealers€who€sold€these€bonds€knew€or€should€haveÏknown€that€Executive€Life€Insurance€Company€was€a€junkÏbond€player,€a€fact€which€reasonable€investors,€includingÏcommunity€bankers,€did€not€generally€know€and€would€notÍreasonably€know.Ìà8 àà8 à11.€ò òNothing€which€I€have€seen€in€any€of€theÏprospectuses€prepared€in€connection€with€theseÏbond€issues€made€any€reference€to€the€purchaseÏof€junk€bonds€or€to€the€permanent€diversion€of€theÏmajority€of€the€bond€funds€from€a€legitimate€publicÏpurpose€to€another€purpose,€and€nothing€in€theÏprospectuses€would€have€put€a€reasonableÏinvestor€on€notice€that€further€inquiry€should€beÏmade,€or€would€lead€a€reasonable€investor€toÏsuspect€that€these€bonds€were€not€what€theyÏappeared€to€beó ó.€€The€fact€that€these€bonds€were€not€whatÏthey€appeared€to€be,€and€that€bond€funds€had€beenÏdiverted€for€use€in€the€purchase€of€high„risk€junk€bonds,€didÏnot€become€general€public€knowledge€until€in€or€aboutÏFebruary€1990.€€(emphasis€added)ÌÌÌÓÓœ›à àDefendants€assert€that€the€Bowman€affidavit€is€insufficient€to€create€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€for€two€reasons.€€First,€defendants€argue,€Bowmanððs€affidavitÏdoes€not€address€the€conflict€between€the€prospectuses€and€Clarkððs€understanding€ofÏFranckððs€alleged€misrepresentations.€€Consequently,€they€argue,€the€affidavit€isÏirrelevant€to€the€case€at€bar.€€We€disagree.€€Whether€the€prospectuses€would€haveÏplaced€a€reasonable€investor€on€notice€that€the€bonds€were€not€what€they€appeared€toÏbe€is€highly€relevant€to€the€present€œcase.ÌÌ›à àSecond,€defendants€assert€that€the€opinions€contained€in€the€affidavit€are€legalÏopinions€and€are,€therefore,€incompetent.€€In€this€regard,€we€recognize€the€general€ruleÏthat€an€expert€affiant€may€not€give€legal€opinions,€and€such€opinions€are€insufficient€toÏcreate€a€genuine€issue€of€fact.€€However,€we€find€that€Bowmanððs€opinion€that€aÏreasonable€investor€would€not€have€been€put€on€notice€is€a€factual€opinion,€rather€thanÏan€impermissible€legal€opinion.ÌÓÓÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiffs€also€submitted€the€affidavit€of€Clark,€in€which€he€stated€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€reviewed€the€prospectuses€which€Mr.€Franck€sent€me€onÏthese€bond€issues.€€While€I€am€not€a€professional€investor,Ïin€the€course€of€my€work€I€have€had€occasion€to€reviewÏprospectuses€on€municipal€bond€issues.€€The€documentsÏwhich€Mr.€Franck€sent€to€me€appeared€to€be€in€standardÏform€with€typical€provisions€for€issues€of€this€nature.€€TheyÏalso€appear€to€confirm€what€Mr.€Franck€had€represented€toÏme€about€each€of€the€bond€issues.€€As€I€read€them,€nothingÏin€the€prospectuses€contradicted€what€he€had€said€orÏcaused€me€to€be€suspicious€or€to€make€further€inquiry€as€toÏthese€bonds....As€indicated,€the€prospectus€on€the€MemphisÏbonds€confirmed€each€of€the€major€points€which€Mr.€FranckÏhad€made€in€my€conversation€with€him.€€I€saw€nothing€in€theÏprospectus€that€was€inconsistent€with€his€oralÏrepresentations....I€did€not€become€aware€of€any€facts€whichÏput€me€on€notice€of€a€potential€problem€with€these€bonds€orÏof€Mr.€Franckððs€misrepresentations€until€late€JanuaryÏ1990....ÌÌà@ à*€*€*€*Ìà8 àà8 àThe€prospectus€contained€a€reference€to€a€ððBond€ServiceÏReserve€Fund.ðð€€Sometimes€referred€to€in€bondÏprospectuses€as€a€ððdebt€service€reserve€fund,ðð€in€myÏexperience€this€is€a€customary€feature€in€such€issuesÏwhereby€a€reserve€fund€is€maintained€in€order€to€serviceÏdebt€payments€to€bondholders€in€the€event€revenue€fromÏthe€underlying€project€is€not€sufficient,€particularly€while€theÏproject€is€under€construction.€€Such€reserve€funds€areÏnormally€invested€in€conservative,€high„quality€securitiesÏsuch€as€government€bonds.€€Such€a€reserve€fund€thusÏserves€to€protect€the€interest€of€the€bondholders.€€For€thatÏreason,€far€from€causing€me€to€be€alarmed,€that€provision€inÏthe€prospectus€gave€me€added€assurance€that€this€was€aÏsafe,€high€quality€investment.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àBased€upon€Clarkððs€affidavit,€we€cannot€say€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏfact€as€to€whether€any€alleged€conflict€between€Franckððs€oral€representations€and€theÍprospectuses€was€sufficient€to€place€plaintiff€on€inquiry€notice.€ÌÓÓà8 àÌà àÌÓÓà àIn€short,€Clarkððs€affidavit€establishes€that€plaintiffs€did€not€discover€their€cause€ofÏaction€until€late€January€1990.€€Bowmanððs€affidavit€establishes€that€plaintiffsÏreasonably€could€not€be€expected€to€have€discovered€their€cause€of€action€before€thatÏtime.ÌÌà àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€plaintiffs,€it€appears€that€thereÏis€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€on€the€question€of€whether€the€prospectuses€should€haveÏplaced€plaintiffs€on€inquiry€notice€of€their€injury.€€€€€It€simply€cannot€be€said€with€legalÏcertainty€that€the€prospectuses€presented€a€glaringly€obvious€red€flag€that,€as€a€matterÏof€law,€should€have€given€plaintiff€notice€of€the€intended€uses€of€the€bond€proceeds.€ÏSimilarly,€it€is€for€the€fact„finder€to€determine€the€degree€of€inconsistency€between€theÏoral€representations€and€the€prospectus€materials,€and€whether€such€inconsistencyÏshould€have€placed€plaintiffs€on€notice€of€the€possibility€of€fraud.Ìà@ àÌà@ àò òREASONABLE€RELIANCEÌÌó óà àThe€second€issue€that€plaintiffs€have€presented€for€our€consideration€is€whetherÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€as€to€the€November€1989€bondÏpurchase€on€grounds€that€plaintiffsðð€reliance€upon€defendantsðð€alleged€representationsÏwas€unreasonable.€€Whether€a€plaintiffððs€reliance€on€alleged€misstatements€isÏreasonable€is€also€generally€a€question€of€fact€inappropriate€for€summary€judgment.€ÍòòSee,€e.g.,óóNicholsòò€v.€A.€B.€Colemans,€Inc.óó,€652€S.W.2d€907€(Tenn.€App.€1983);€òòMarineÏMidland€Bank,€N.A.€v.€G.M.A.C.óó,€No.€03A01„9502„CV„00060,€1995€WL€417047,€(Tenn.ÏApp.€July€17,€1995).ÌÌà àThe€law€of€misrepresentation€requires€a€fact„finder€to€take€into€account€theÏspecific€situation€of€a€plaintiff€in€evaluating€the€reasonableness€of€reliance.€€WhenÏdetermining€the€reasonableness€of€an€investorððs€reliance€on€a€brokerððsÏrepresentations,€the€trier€of€fact€should€consider€facts€and€circumstances€such€as:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€the€investorððs€sophistication€and€expertise€in€financialÏand€securities€matters,€(2)€the€existence€of€longstandingÏbusiness€or€personal€relationships€between€the€parties,€(3)Ïthe€availability€of€the€relevant€information,€(4)€the€existenceÏof€a€fiduciary€relationship,€(5)€the€concealment€of€the€fraud,Ï(6)€the€opportunity€to€discover€the€fraud,€(7)€which€partyÏinitiated€the€transaction,€and€(8)€the€specificity€of€theÏmisrepresentations.€€ÌòòDean€Witter€Reynolds,€Inc.€v.€M.€C.€McCoyóó,€No.€94„5„779,€1995€WL€699619€(6th€Cir.ÏNov.€27,€1995)€(Moore,€J.,€dissenting).ÌÌÌà àÌÓÓà àPlaintiffs€have€produced€evidence€creating€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€toÏwhether€it€was€reasonable€for€plaintiffs€to€have€relied€on€defendantsðð€allegedÏmisrepresentations.€€Taking€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€plaintiffs,€weÏcannot€say€that€plaintiffsðð€reliance€on€defendantsðð€alleged€representations€wasÏunreasonable€as€a€matter€of€law.€€We€therefore€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€entry€ofÏsummary€judgment€as€to€the€November€1989€transaction.Ìœ›Ìà@ àò òFRAUDó óà àÌÌà àPlaintiffsðð€third€contention€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏtheir€case€on€grounds€that€they€failed€to€plead€fraud€with€particularity.€€In€his€letterÏexplaining€his€reasons€for€granting€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trialÏjudge€stated€in€the€last€paragraph:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Court€finds€that€Plaintiff€has€not€met€his€burden€ofÏpleading€with€particularity€the€circumstances€constitutingÏthe€fraud€or€mistake€of€Defendant.€€€Because€the€PlaintiffððsÏ[sic]€filed€their€complaint€on€January€15,€1993,€and€theÏprospectuses€were€received€by€Plaintiff€on€November€28,Ï1989,€Plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€is€time€barred.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àDefendants€argue€that€plaintiffs€misconstrued€the€basis€of€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal.€€Defendants€interpret€the€trial€courtððs€letter€to€mean€that€plaintiffs€failed€to€setÏforth€sufficient€allegations€supporting€a€claim€for€fraudulent€concealment€that€wouldÏoperate€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àIf€defendants€are€correct€in€their€interpretation€of€the€trial€courtððs€statements,Ïthen€we€agree€that€plaintiffs€failed€sufficiently€to€allege€facts€supporting€a€claim€forÏfraudulent€concealment.€€In€order€for€the€statute€of€limitations€to€be€tolled€due€toÏfraudulent€concealment,€a€plaintiff€must€allege€that€defendant€knew€of€the€cause€ofÏaction€and€fraudulently€concealed€such€information.€€òòRay€v.€Scheibertóó,€450€S.W.2dÏ578,€580€(Tenn.€1969).€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€9.02€requires€that€in€pleadings€averring€fraud,Ïthe€circumstances€constituting€fraud€must€be€pled€with€particularity.€€The€plaintiffsððÏcomplaint€simply€does€not€allege€fraudulent€concealment.€ÌÌà àHowever,€to€the€extent€that€the€trial€court€attempted€to€dismiss€plaintiffsðð€case€for€Ïfailure€to€plead€fraud€with€particularity,€we€reverse.€€Although€fraud€must€be€pled€withÏparticularity,€the€Committee€Comments€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€9.02€explain€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[t]he€requirement...is€not€intended€to€require€lengthy€recitalÏof€detail.€€Rather,€the€Rule€means€only€that€generalÏallegations€of€fraud€and€mistake€are€insufficient;€the€pleaderÏis€required€to€particularize€but€by€the€ððshort€and€plainððÏstatement€required€by€Rule€8.01.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àIn€an€action€for€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€a€plaintiff€must€show:€(1)€that€theÏdefendant€made€a€representation€of€fact;€(2)€that€the€representation€was€false;€(3)€theÏrepresentation€related€to€a€material€fact;€(4)€the€representation€was€made€eitherÏknowingly,€recklessly,€or€without€belief€in€its€truth;€(5)€that€plaintiff€acted€reasonably€inÏrelying€on€the€representation;€and€(6)€that€plaintiff€suffered€damage€as€a€result€of€theÏrepresentation.€€òòMetro€Govt.€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€County€v.€McKinneyóó,€852€S.W.2dÏ233,€237€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àPlaintiffsðð€complaint€specifically€identifies€the€time€and€place€of€each€allegedÏfalse€representation,€and€identifies€the€manner€in€which€each€representation€wasÏdeemed€to€have€been€fraudulent.€€€The€plaintiffsðð€complaint€contains€allegationsÏconcerning€each€of€the€above€requisites€comprising€an€action€for€fraud.€€In€our€opinion,Ïtherefore,€the€complaint€fully€complies€with€Rule€9.02.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà à€Our€review€of€the€record€convinces€us€that€genuine€issues€of€fact€remain,Ïrendering€inappropriate€the€trial€courtððs€entry€of€summary€judgment€based€upon€theÏexpiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Therefore,€because€there€exist€genuine€issuesÏof€material€fact€as€to€whether€plaintiffs€should€have€discovered€their€cause€of€action,Ïand€as€to€whether€their€reliance€upon€defendantsðð€representations€was€reasonable,€Ïsummary€judgment€based€upon€the€statute€of€limitations€is€precluded.€€The€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€cause€remanded€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€adjudged€against€defendants.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSUMMERS,€S.J.