WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ U, 0d UBV % U, U6 B) DC) AMl U* . Bv~.v D3 0@ AOA 0D D/K BzU!3|x($ DDD Ӏ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial $ !  #d#  ##   YYY FILED#X August16,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk  dPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#        \RA'\\RA'\7oXXdd7L"$!;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION LESAHAGERandBONNIELENTS, )C/AN0.03A019601CV00010      )  Appellants,  )RHEALAW      )v.      )HON.JOHNA.TURNBULL,      )JUDGEJ.ARNOLDFITZGERALD,  )      )VACATEDAND  Appellee.   )REMANDEDNATHANE.BROOKS,Chattanooga,forAppellants.W.B.LUTHER,andSHANEUSARY,Chattanooga,forAppellee.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  Plaintiffsbroughtthisactionagainsttheirattorney,allegingthathewasguiltyof fraud,outrageousconduct,legalmalpractice,andbreachoffiduciaryduty inpurchasingtheproceedsofthestructuredsettlementsenteredbytheplaintiffs.  TheTrialCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentonbehalfofthedefendant,afterthediscoverydepositionsoftheplaintiffsweretakenanddefendantfiledanaffidavitofan investmentspecialist .  Webeginouranalysisbyobservingthatnopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestodecisionsgrantingsummaryjudgment,Robertsv.Roberts,845S.W.2d225(Tenn.App.1992),andtheCourtmustviewallaffidavitsanddepositionsinthelightmostfavorabletotheopponentofthemotionanddrawlegitimateconclusionsoffacttherefromintheopponentsfavor.Berryv.Whitworth,576S.W.2d351(Tenn.App.1978).  PlaintiffsdepositionsrevealthatbothplaintiffsϜwereaddictedtodrugsandalcohol,andthatdefendanthadrepresentedtheminvariousandsundrymatters,includingcriminalcharges.Plaintiffsemployeddefendanttorepresenttheminanactionfordamagesforpersonalinjuriesarisingfromanautomobileaccident,whichcasesweresettled,withapartofthesettlementpaidtoplaintiffsatthetimeofsigningreleases,andtheremainingconsiderationwastobepaidintheformofastructuredsettlement,whichtheplaintiffsenteredwiththeinsurancecarrierforthetortfeasor.  ThestructuredsettlementagreementswereenteredwithTennesseeFarmersLifeInsuranceCompanywhichprovidedannuitypayments,andtheagreementbyitstermsprohibitedassignmentoftheownershipofthepolicy.Theagreementprovidedforsixtymonthlyequalpaymentstoeachplaintiffandtheirattorney.  Thedefendanthadengagedinthepracticeofadvancingmoneytotheseplaintiffs,andafterthreeofthemonthlypaymentshadbeenmadeanddisbursedtoplaintiffsbydefendant,oneoftheplaintiffsapproacheddefendantaboutborrowingmoney,andheadvisedthattheyhadpassedtheir limit thatmonth.Thisplaintiffthenapproachedaloancompanyaboutborrowingmoney,advisingofhermonthlypayments.Shecandidlyadmitsthatthereasonforwantingtheloanwas probablywantingtogethigh .Theloancompanyinsisteduponsomedocumentationofplaintiffsmonthlypayments,andtheplaintiffwenttodefendantsofficeseekingcopiesofthestructuredsettlementagreement,whereuponthelawyerinformedherthatshedidntwanttodothat,andaskedhertoreturntohisofficethatnight.Bothplaintiffswenttodefendantsofficethateveninginastateofintoxicationandsignedagreementswiththedefendantwhereinhepurchasedtheproceedsfromthestructuredsettlementagreement.Oneoftheplaintiffsovertheremainingfiftysevenmonthswouldhavereceived$32,348.10.Thedefendantpaidthisplaintiff$18,676.00.Theotherplaintiffwouldhavereceivedoverthesameperiod$25,597.54.Thedefendantpaid$15,500.00asconsideration.  Oneoftheplaintiffsexplainedtheirpositionthus,inthecourseofthedeposition:0 0 Q.0 Letmeaskyou,generally,whatisyourcomplaintagainstArnold?HowdoyouthinkArnolddidyouwronginthiscase,thisautomobileaccidentcase?0 0 A.0 BybuyingmysettlementwhenItrustedArnold.0 0 Q.0 Yeah.0 0 A.0 HeasfarasIwasconcerned,hehadnotletmedown.ThatswhyIdidntbothertokeeptrackofthisamountofmoney,orthatamountofmoney.ItrustedArnold.0 0 Q.0 Yousayhedidyouwrongbybuyingyoursettlement?0 0 A.0 KnowingtheshapethatIwasin,heknewthatIneededthatmonthlycheckeachmonth.0 0 Q.0 Uhhuh.0 0 A.0 Overthattimeperiod,notallatonce.0 0 Q.0 Uhhuh.0 0 A.0 Notwithmyproblem.Notwithmyframeofmind.0 0 Q.0 Soyouwantedhimtodolethismoneyouttoyou.Isthatwhatyouwanted?0 0 A.0 Iwantedhimtokeepitlikeitwassupposedtobe.  Theaffidavitofthe investmentspecialist opinesthattheaffianthaddiscussedthetermsoftheannuitypolicieswithanemployeeofTennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCompany,anddeterminedfromthatconversationthatthepolicyhadnosurrendervalueandnocashvalueasofOctober6,1993,andbaseduponthesediscussionsandmarketexperience,sheconcludedthatdefendanthad overpaid totheplaintiffsfortheirannuities.  ThetimehonoredruleinthisjurisdictioninϜresolvingdisputesbetweenattorneysandtheirclientsisstatedinWaller,Lansdon,Dortch,Davisv.Haney,851S.W.2d131(Tenn.1992):0 0 Owingtotheconfidentialandfiduciaryrelationbetweenanattorneyandhisclient,andtotheinfluenceoftheattorneyoverhisclient,growingoutofthatrelation,courtsoflaw,andespeciallyofequity,scrutinizemostcloselyalltransactionsbetweenanattorneyandhisclient.Tosustainatransactionofadvantagetohimselfwithhisclient,theattorneyhastheburdenofshowing,notonlythatheusednoundueinfluence,butthathegavehisclientalltheinformationandadvicewhichis(sic)wouldhavebeenhisdutytogiveifhehimselfhadnotbeeninterestedandthatthetransactionwasasbeneficialtotheclientasitwouldhavebeenhadtheclientdealtwithstranger. 0 0 Id.131(QuotingHutchinsonv.Crowder,8Tenn.Civ.App.114(1917).)ThisCourtobservedinCultrav.Douglas,44S.W.2d575(1969)that:0 0 Therelationshipofattorneyandclientisanextremelydelicateandfiduciaryonesofarasthedutyoftheattorneytowardhisclientisconcerned,andthecourtsjealouslyholdtheattorneytotheutmostgoodfaithinthedischargeofhisduties.TheCourtthenquotedwithapprovalfrom7C.J.S.AttorneyandClientsec.127,atpp.964965,thegeneralrulegoverningdealingsbetweenattorneysandclients:0 0 Rather,allsuchtransactionsordealingsareregardedwithsuspicionanddisfavor,arediscouragedbythepolicyofthelaw,andwillbecloselyscrutinizedbythecourts,whichwillleanagainsttheattorney;andifitappearsthatthetransactionisunfairthattheclienthasbeenoverreachedorundulyinfluenced,itmaybeavoidedathiselection,eitherincourtsoflaw,orincourtsofequityontheprinciplesthatgoverntheconductanddealingsoftrusteesorfiduciariesgenerally. AndtheSupremeCourtmostrecentlysaidinMatlockv.Simpson,902S.W.2d384(Tenn.1995)thattheruleisthattheexistenceofaconfidentialrelationshipfollowedbyatransactionwhereinthedominantpartyreceivesabenefitfromtheotherparty,apresumptionofundueinfluencearisesthatmayberebuttedonlybyclearandconvincingevidenceoffairnessofthetransaction.  Thegeneralrulefollowedinmost,ifnotall,jurisdictionspresumesthatundueinfluenceorfraudattachestoanyassignmentorconveyancethatanattorneytakesfromhisclient,whiletherelationshipofattorney/clientexists,andthatnopresumptionofinnocenceorimprobabilityofwrongdoingexistsinfavoroftheattorney.7Am.Jur.2dAttorneysatLaw,122and7AC.J.S.AttorneyandClient,241.  TheaffidavitoftheexpertdoesnotsatisfythecriteriaofT.R.C.P.Rule56.05andRule703,TennesseeRulesofEvidence.Moreover,thisisthetypeofcasewhereonlyuponafulltrialcantheissuesbeproperlydeveloped,andweconcludethatsummaryjudgmentisnotanappropriateprocedureforthedispositionoftheissuesinthiscase.SeeFowlerv.HappyGoodmanFamily,575S.W.2d496(Tenn.1978).Accordingly,wevacatethesummaryjudgmentandremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion,withcostsassessedtodefendant.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.