ÿWPCº …UBV %˜žn­® 04[4Þ£w@ 0JÁ 0T 0^_ 0h½ 0r% 0|— 0† 0™ 1u) 0džU6B)8DCa AM¤U*ñ B4v~QvÓÏ D3¢ 0@Õ AOÆd 0D* D/n B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|x «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓÚƒç"Ó  ÓShelbyMcKEESANTOREBrummitFosheeBrummitsBreedenHaefnerBurkeyKrogerHoltz L.EdProsserLacknerLaCroix3dJunodBaderWoodyatt BabbCal.RptrMinasianSapseCal.AppBrumit Wahl øùUúeûüDýUþVÿUÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òAugust€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€’$XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€"$!A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌNORMA€JEAN€FOSHEEà@ à)à àGREENE€COUNTYà àà àà àÌà@ à)à à03A01„9607„CV„00231Ìà àPlaintiff„Appelleeà àà à€€€€€€€€€à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àÌà àà@ à)à àÌà àv.€€à@ à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€L.€JENKINS,Ìà àà@ à)à àJUDGEÌà@ à)à àÌSOUTHERN€FINANCE€ANDà àà àà àà@ à)à àà@ à)à àà àà@ à)ÌTHRIFT€CORPORATION,€WALTER€à@ à)ÌBRUMIT€and€HORACE€BRUMITà@ à)Ìà àà@ à)à@ àÌà àDefendants„Appellantsà@ à)à àREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDÌÌÌÌÌÌSTEVEN€C.€ROSE€OF€KINGSPORT€FOR€APPELLANTS€SOUTHERN€FINANCE€ANDÏTHRIFT€CORPORATION€and€WALTER€BRUMITÌÌTHOMAS€C.€McKEE€OF€JOHNSON€CITY€FOR€APPELLANT€HORACE€BRUMITÌÌFRANCIS€X.€SANTORE,€SR.,€and€FRANCIS€X.€SANTORE,€JR.,€OFÏGREENEVILLE€FOR€APPELLEE€ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Goddard,€P.J.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€principal„„and,€in€our€view,€the€determinative„„issue€presented€in€this€Rule€9€Interlocutory€appeal€is€whether€aÏplea€of€double€jeopardy€in€which€the€underlying€criminalÏprosecution€was€dismissed€on€the€ground€that€the€Trial€CourtÏerroneously€granted€a€mistrial€in€the€first€criminal€case€is€aÏtermination€favorable€to€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌà àà àThe€Trial€Court€held€that€it€was€and€overruled€theÏDefendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment,€resulting€in€this€appeal.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€outset,€we€observe€there€are€procedural€defectsÏin€the€Defendants'€attempt€to€appeal.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€it€does€not€appear€that€Defendant€Walter€€BrummitÏever€moved€for€a€Rule€9€appeal.€€Second,€the€motion€of€the€otherÏDefendants,€Southern€Finance€and€Thrift€Corporation€and€HoraceÏBrummit€was€not€filed€within€the€30„day€period€mandated€by€Rule€9.€ÏHowever,€in€the€interest€of€judicial€economy,€we€believe€itÏappropriate€to€waive€all€uncomplied€with€rules€as€to€such€appealsÏand€address€the€merits€of€this€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€genesis€of€the€suit€giving€rise€to€this€appeal€was€aÏcriminal€prosecution€(initiated€by€presentment€returned€in€AprilÏ1991)€for€embezzlement€against€the€Plaintiff,€Norma€Jean€Foshee,€aÏ28„year€employee€of€Southern€Finance€and€Thrift€Corporation.€€TheÏCorporation€was€owned€by€Walter€Brummit.€€In€1985€he€purchased€100Ïpercent€of€the€corporate€stock€from€his€father,€Horace€Brummit,Ïwho€had€remained€active€in€the€business€until€1988€and€wasÏinstrumental€in€investigating€the€matter€giving€rise€to€theÏcriminal€prosecution€and€in€securing€a€confession€from€theÏPlaintiff€which€she€admits€signing,€but€contends€was€as€a€resultÏof€duress€by€Horace€Brummit.€€ÌÌà àà àDuring€direct€examination€in€the€criminal€trial,€theÏPlaintiff,€in€an€unresponsive€answer€to€one€of€her€counsel'sÏquestions,€volunteered€the€fact€that€"I€even€offered€to€take€a€lieÏde.€.€.€."€€Her€answer€was€interrupted€by€an€objection€by€theÏAssistant€Attorney€General.€€The€State€then€moved€for€a€mistrialÏwhich€the€Trial€Judge€granted.€€Prior€to€the€commencement€of€theÏsecond€trial,€the€Plaintiff€entered€a€plea€of€double€jeopardyÏwhich€was€overruled€by€the€Trial€Court.€€An€interlocutory€appealÏwas€perfected€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€which€found€thatÏthe€granting€of€the€mistrial€was€error€and€any€prejudice€resultingÏto€the€State€from€the€Plaintiff's€testimony€could€and€should€haveÍbeen€remedied€by€curative€instructions.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€thereupon€sustained€the€plea€and€dismissed€theÏprosecution.€€òòState€v.€Fosheeóó,€an€unreported€opinion€of€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals,€filed€in€Knoxville€on€November€18,€1993.ÌÌà àà àThereafter,€a€complaint€in€the€present€case€was€filed,Ïadvancing€the€following€theories:Ì1.à àCivil€conspiracyÌ2.à àOutrageous€conductÌ3.à àIntentional€infliction€of€emotional€distressÌ4.€€à àMalicious€abuse€of€processÌ5.à àMalicious€prosecutionÌÌà àà àThe€Trial€Court€granted€summary€judgment€to€allÏDefendants€as€to€all€theories€of€recovery€except€that€forÏmalicious€prosecution.à àÌÌà àà àIn€response€to€the€malicious€prosecution€count,€theÏDefendants„„as€set€out€in€their€brief„„interposed€the€followingÏdefenses:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à1.à àThat€there€was€not€a€"final€and€favorableÏtermination"€of€the€criminal€action€in€favor€of€theÏPlaintiff€as€required€by€law;ÌÌà à2.à àThat€the€record€as€a€whole€established€òòwithoutÏcontradictionóó€that€none€of€the€Defendants€had€sufficientÏcontrol€over€or€involvement€in€the€criminal€action€toÏsupport€an€action€against€any€of€them;€(Emphasis€inÏoriginal.)ÌÌà à3.à àThat€the€record€as€a€whole€failed€to€reflectÏany€proof€of€malice€on€the€part€of€any€Defendant;€andÌÌà à4.à àThat€there€was€probable€cause€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€to€support€the€prosecution€of€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌà à5.à à.€.€.€Defendant,€Horace€Brumit,€furtherÏasserted€that€there€was€no€proof€whatsoever€of€anyÏinvolvement€on€his€part€in€the€pursuing€of€the€civilÏaction.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àThe€Defendants'€appeal,€which€was€granted€by€the€TrialÏJudge,€questions€his€action€in€overruling€each€of€the€foregoingÏdefenses.€ÌÌà àà àJudge€Sanders,€in€òòBowman€v.€Breedenóó,€an€unreportedÏopinion€of€this€Court,€filed€in€Knoxville€on€December€20,€1988,Ïfound€that€dismissal€of€a€criminal€prosecution€on€payment€of€costsÏby€the€defendant€was€not€a€favorable€resolution.€€In€the€course€ofÏhis€opinion€he€enunciated€the€proof€necessary€to€support€such€aÏclaim€and€then€reviewed€Tennessee€case€law€touching€on€theÏsubject:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àThe€elements€to€be€proved€by€the€Plaintiff€in€aÏmalicious€prosecution€case€are:ÌÌÒ ¼ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¼ ÒÒ ¼ Ò(1)€a€criminal€proceeding€has€been€instituted€by€theÏDefendant€against€the€Plaintiff;€(2)€such€proceedingÏterminated€in€favor€of€the€accused;€(3)€there€was€anÏabsence€of€probable€cause€for€the€proceeding;€and€(4)Ïthere€was€malice€or€a€primary€purpose€other€than€thatÏof€bringing€an€offender€to€justice.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ¼ ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒòòSeeóó,€òòLanders€v.€The€Kroger€Co.óó,€539€S.W.€2d€130Ï(Tenn.App.1976),€and€cases€cited€therein.ÌÌà àThe€issue€in€the€case€at€bar€centers€around€whetherÏor€not€it€can€be€shown€the€criminal€proceeding€againstÏthe€Plaintiff€terminated€in€his€favor.€€We€hold€itÏcannot.ÌÌà àIt€is€necessary€to€an€action€for€maliciousÏprosecution€that€the€proceeding€giving€rise€to€itÏterminated€in€the€plaintiff's€favor.€€Otherwise€thereÏcan€be€no€recovery.€€While€various€modes€of€terminationÏcan€be€construed€as€favorable€to€an€accused,€a€causeÏdismissed€pursuant€to€a€compromise€and/or€settlement€isÏan€indecisive€termination€and,€thus,€cannot€sustain€anÏaction€for€malicious€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó,€òòLandersóó,€òòsupraóó;ÏòòMartin€v.€Wahlóó,€17€Tenn.App.€192,€66€S.W.2d€608€(1933);Ï52€Am.Jur.2d€òòMalicious€Prosecutionóó,€ðð43;€Restatement€ofÏTorts€2d,€ðð660.ÌÌÒ ¼ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ¼ ÒÒ ¼ Ò[œT]he›€reason€for€the€rule€is€said€to€be,€either€thatÏthere€is€in€such€cases€such€an€admission€of€probableÏcause€that€the€Plaintiff€cannot€afterwards€retract€itÏand€try€the€question€which€he€waived€by€theÏsettlement,€regardless€of€the€validity€or€invalidityÏof€the€compromise,€or€that€the€accused,€havingÏconsented€to€a€termination€which€leaves€open€theÏquestion€of€his€guilt€and€possible€conviction€cannotÏtake€advantage€of€it.€€òòSeeóó,€52€Am.Jur.2d,€òòsupraóó.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòMartinóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ¼ ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àThe€only€cases€we€have€found€directly€in€point€areÏòòHaefner€v.€Burkeyóó,€626€A.2d€519€(Pa.1993),€and€òòSmith€v.€Holtzóó,€87ÏF.3d€108€(3rd€Cir.1996),€a€3rd€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€caseÏpurporting€to€apply€the€common€law€and€also€Pennsylvania€law€byÏrelying€on€òòHaefneróó.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Supreme€Court€of€Pennsylvania€found€that€theÏquashing€of€the€indictment€as€a€result€of€the€sustaining€of€a€pleaÏof€double€jeopardy€as€to€one€count,€as€well€as€the€entry€of€aÏòònolleóó€òòprosequióó€as€to€another,€were€favorable€terminations€of€theÏproceedings€that€would€support€a€case€for€malicious€prosecution.ÌÌà àà àOne€of€the€Justices,€however„„in€a€concurring€opinion„„Ïfound€that€the€entry€of€an€order€of€òònolleóó€òòprosequióó€as€to€theÏsecond€count€of€the€indictment€in€the€criminal€case€was€aÏfavorable€termination,€but€that€the€sustaining€of€a€plea€of€doubleÏjeopardy€was€not.€€In€doing€so,€he€stated€the€following:€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àI€agree€with€the€learned€court€below€thatÏtermination€of€the€criminal€proceedings€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff€means€more€than€mere€termination.€Ï"Proceedings€are€'terminated€in€favor€of€the€accused,'Ï[for€purposes€of€a€malicious€prosecution€action],€onlyÏwhen€their€final€disposition€is€such€as€to€indicate€theÏinnocence€of€the€accused."€€Restatement€(Second)€ofÏTorts€ðð€660€Comment€a€(1977).€€òòSee€also€Junod€v.€Baderóó,Ï312€œPa.Super›.€92,€458€A.2d€251€(1983).€€However,Ícontrary€to€the€Superior€Court,€and€consistent€with€theÏmajority's€holding€herein,€I€conclude€that€where€theÏcriminal€charges€lodged€by€a€private€complainant€areÏ"nolle€prossed"€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€or€areÏwithdrawn€by€the€private€complainants„„particularlyÏwhere€the€statute€of€limitations€has€expired€without€theÏcharges€being€reinstated„„the€termination€is€consistentÏwith€innocence.€€òòCompare€Woodyatt€v.€Bank€of€Old€YorkÏRoadóó,€408€Pa.€257,€182€A.2d€500€(1962)€(discharge€afterÏabandonment€of€charges€by€the€prosecutor€of€chargesÏbeing€withdrawn€by€the€prosecutor,€although€not€aÏdetermination€of€merits,€is€sufficient€to€satisfyÏelement€of€favorable€termination€of€the€criminalÏaction).ÌÌà àI€disagree,€however,€with€the€majority's€holdingÏthat€the€proceedings€on€the€other€charges€againstÏAppellant€terminated€in€his€favor.€€I€agree€with€theÏSuperior€Court€that€discharge€of€a€criminal€prosecutionÏas€a€result€of€a€mistrial€is€not€a€termination€that€isÏconsistent€with€innocence.€€òòSee€Singleton€v.€City€of€NewÏYorkóó,€632€F.2d€185,€193„194€(2d€Cir.1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ï450€U.S.€920,€101€S.Ct.€1368,€67€L.Ed.2d€347€(1981).€IÏbelieve€that€the€majority€opinion€improperly€focuses€itsÏinquiry€upon€the€subsequent€quashing€of€the€indictmentÏupon€the€Commonwealth's€attempt€to€retry€Appellant.€€IÏalso€point€out€that€the€indictment€was€quashed€on€doubleÏjeopardy€grounds,€and€not€for€a€reason€consistent€withÏAppellant's€innocence.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòHaefneróó,€at€page€521.ÌÌà àà àThe€question€of€favorable€termination€is€also€addressedÏin€Prosser€on€Torts,€œ5th›€Ed.,€page€874,€as€follows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àIn€order€to€maintain€his€action€for€maliciousÏprosecution,€the€plaintiff€must€show€not€only€that€theÏcriminal€proceeding€has€terminated,€but€also€that€it€hasÏterminated€in€his€favor.€€Consistent€with€this,€it€hasÏbeen€said€that€the€termination€must€not€only€beÍfavorable€to€the€accused,€but€must€also€reflect€theÏmerits€and€not€merely€a€procedural€victory.€€(FootnoteÏomitted.)ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àCited€by€Prosser€is€the€case€of€òòLackner€v.€LaCroixóó,€602ÏP.2d€393€(Cal.1979),€wherein€the€Supreme€Court€of€California€foundÏthat€a€successful€plea€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€theÏcriminal€prosecution€was€not€a€favorable€termination.€€In€doing€soÏthe€Court€used€the€following€reasoning€(at€page€394):ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à"It€is€hornbook€law€that€the€plaintiff€in€aÏmalicious€prosecution€action€must€plead€and€prove€thatÏthe€prior€judicial€proceeding€of€which€he€complainsÏterminated€in€his€favor."€€(òòBabb€v.€Superior€CourtóóÏ(1971)€3€Cal.3d€841,€845,€92€Cal.Rptr.€179,€181,€479ÏP.2d€379,€381.)€€We€therefore€determine€whether€aÏsuccessful€statute€of€limitations€defense€constitutes€a€Ìfavorable€termination€of€an€underlying€suit€so€as€toÏsupport€a€subsequent€action€for€malicious€prosecution.ÌÌà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà àIt€is€not€essential€to€maintenance€of€an€action€forÏmalicious€prosecution€that€the€prior€proceeding€wasÏfavorably€terminated€following€trial€on€the€merits.€ÏHowever,€termination€must€òòreflectóó€on€the€merits€of€theÏunderlying€action.€€(òòMinasian€v.€Sapse,€supra,€óó80ÏCal.App.3d€823,€827,€145€Cal.Rptr.€829.)ÌÌà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà àIt€is€apparent€"favorable"€termination€does€notÏoccur€merely€because€a€party€complained€against€hasÏprevailed€in€an€underlying€action.€€While€the€fact€heÏhas€prevailed€is€an€ingredient€of€a€favorableÏtermination,€such€termination€must€further€reflect€onÏhis€innocence€of€the€alleged€wrongful€conduct.€€If€theÍtermination€does€not€relate€to€the€merits„„reflecting€onÏneither€innocence€of€nor€responsibility€for€the€allegedÏmisconduct„„the€termination€is€not€favorable€in€theÏsense€it€would€support€a€subsequent€action€for€maliciousÏprosecution.ÌÌà àTermination€of€an€action€by€a€statute€ofÏlimitations€defense€must€be€deemed€a€technical€orÏprocedural€as€distinguished€from€a€substantiveÏtermination.ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àWe€are€impressed€with€the€concurring€opinion€in€theÏPennsylvania€case,€the€statement€in€Prosser,€and€the€reasoning€ofÏthe€California€case.€€We€accordingly€find€that€under€the€facts€ofÏthis€case€the€dismissal€of€the€underlying€criminal€case€against€œÌÌÌÌthe›€Plaintiff€on€the€double€jeopardy€grounds€was€not€a€favorableÏtermination€which€would€support€a€suit€for€malicious€prosecution.ÌÌœ›à àà àIn€conclusion,€we€point€out€that€we€have€not€overlookedÏaffidavits€of€10€jurors€who€sat€on€the€criminal€case.€€They€stateÏthat€in€their€opinion€the€State€had€not€carried€its€burden€ofÏproof€and€that€they€would€have€found€that€the€Plaintiff€was€notÏguilty.€€We€first€observe€a€plea€of€double€jeopardy€does€notÏconcern€itself€with€the€guilt€or€innocence,€but€rather,€whetherÍparties'€constitutional€rights€have€been€violated€by€placing€themÏin€jeopardy€a€second€time.€€To€put€it€another€way„„the€guilt€orÏinnocence€is€irrelevant.€€Thus,€we€conclude€the€affidavits€shouldÏnot€be€considered€in€resolving€whether€a€meritorious€doubleÏjeopardy€plea€is€a€favorable€termination.€€We€also€observe€thatÏthe€conclusions€of€the€affidavits€are€suspect€because€a€mistrialÏwas€declared€during€the€Plaintiff's€direct€examination€and€beforeÏshe€had€been€subjected€to€the€rigors€of€cross„examination.€ÏMoreover,€one€of€the€affidavits€states€that€the€jurors€wereÏdivided€11€to€one€for€acquittal,€and€while€it€may€be€that€the€11Ïwould€have€been€able€to€persuade€the€one,€such€an€assumption€isÏspeculative.€€Additionally,€if€unable€to€persuade€the€one,€a€ÌœÇÌmistrial›€would€have€had€to€be€declared€which,€of€course,€would€notÏbe€a€termination,€much€less€a€termination€in€favor€of€theÏPlaintiff.ÌÌà àà àIn€light€of€our€disposition€of€the€double€jeopardyÏissue,€it€is€unnecessary€that€we€address€the€other€issues€raised.Ìœ(See€Appendix.)›Ìà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€TrialÏCourt€is€reversed€and€the€cause€dismissed.€€The€case€is€remanded€Ìto€the€Trial€Court€for€collection€of€costs€below,€which€are,€asÏare€costs€of€appeal,€adjudged€against€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÇÑ X ÑÑ  ÑÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€APPENDIXÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòHORACE€BRUMIT'SóóÌà@ àòòSTATEMENT€OF€ISSUES€PRESENTED€FOR€REVIEWóóÌÌÌÌà à1.à àWhether€the€termination€of€the€criminal€action€wasÏ"final€and€favorable"€to€the€Plaintiff€such€as€would€support€anÏaction€for€malicious€prosecution.ÌÌà à2.à àWhether€there€is€a€question€of€fact€as€to€whether€theÏDefendant,€Horace€Brumit,€had€sufficient€"active€involvement"€inÏthe€civil€suit€and/or€prosecution€of€the€Plaintiff€in€the€criminalÏaction€as€could€give€the€Plaintiff€a€basis€for€action€against€himÏas€a€matter€of€law.€€If€so,€and€he€in€fact€had€that€level€ofÏinvolvement,€whether€he€is€entitled€to€the€defense€of€"advice€ofÏcounsel"€as€would€preclude€a€judgment€against€him€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw.ÌÌà à3.à àWhether€there€was€probable€cause€for€the€prosecutionÏand/or€suing€of€the€Plaintiff€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà à4.à àWhether€there€was€any€proof€in€the€record€of€malice€onÏthe€part€of€the€Defendant,€Horace€Brumit,€which€would€support€aÏjudgment€against€him€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌÇÑ  ÑÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€APPENDIXÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€Page€2à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòSOUTHERN€FINANCE€AND€THRIFT€CORPORATIONóó€Ìà@ àòòAND€WALTER€BRUMIT'Sóó€Ìà@ àòòSTATEMENT€OF€ISSUES€FOR€REVIEWóóÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà à1.à àOn€this€record,€could€reasonable€minds€differ€as€toÏwhether€Appellants€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€AppelleeÏembezzled€money€from€œSFTC›?ÌÌà à2.à àIs€there€evidence€in€the€record€sufficient€to€raise€aÏgenuine€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€Appellants€had€the€requisiteÏcontrol€over,€or€active€involvement€in,€the€prosecution€ofÏAppellee€in€the€criminal€action€so€as€to€permit€an€action€forÏmalicious€prosecution€against€them?ÌÌà à3.à àIs€there€evidence€in€the€record€sufficient€to€raise€aÏgenuine€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€Appellants€acted€with€maliceÏin€connection€with€the€criminal€prosecution€brought€againstÏAppellee?ÌÌà à4.à àDoes€a€termination€of€a€criminal€action€on€doubleÏjeopardy€grounds€following€a€mistrial€granted€upon€motion€by€theÏprosecutor€constitute€a€"final€and€favorable"€termination€of€anÏunderlying€proceeding€sufficient€to€support€an€action€forÏmalicious€prosecution?Ì