ÿWPC2 1# ¾UNÉ % 0cU<€w@¼4ü 0J' 0Tq 0^Å 0h# 0r‹ 0|ý 0†y 0ÿ 1u 0d U>h B)¦ 0@Ï D3 BB 0D_ DC£ AMæ U*3 c] U6À AQö ÆG 0D  0DQ D/• BÄv~ávÓ_˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL(Î(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman KDLDMDNDOUPîQÓ€RÓ€^a§aö"xTS Ôˆ 3|xa2 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 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó7Border 1dd* $Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ08,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€\ÑXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òMARY€ANN€LAZAR€JEFFERSON,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€68639€T.D.ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„0611„CV„00279ÌÙ€*ÙßR€%'$A1-j|çø` à. `€€@ÿRßÌò òJAMES€B.€TAYLOR,€ANGELINEÌG.€TAYLOR€and€ORKIN€PESTÌCONTROL,€ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellees.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WYETH€CHANDLER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àThomas€D.€Yeaglin€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Plaintiff„AppellantÌÌà@ àMichael€E.€Keeney€and€Michael€G.€McLaren;Ìà@ àThomason,€Hendrix,€Harvey,€Johnson€&€Mitchell€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€James€Taylor€and€Angeline€Taylorà@ àÌÌà@ àPhilip€E.€Mischke,€Jonathan€P.€Lakey;Ìà@ àWyatt,€Tarrant€&€Combs€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Defendant„Appellant,€Orkin€Pest€ControlÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÓÓ›à àThis€case€involves€the€alleged€fraudulent€concealment€of€a€cause€of€actionÏthat,€if€shown,€would€warrant€tolling€of€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€ÏPlaintiff€Mary€Ann€Lazar€Jefferson€appeals€the€order€of€the€trial€court€grantingÏsummary€judgment€to€defendants€James€B.€Taylor,€€Angeline€G.€Taylor€(nowÏWoodmansee),€and€Orkin€Pest€Control€Company.€€Ìà àIn€February€1988,€€Jefferson€purchased€a€home€from€the€Taylors€locatedÏin€the€Central€Gardens€Historic€District€of€Memphis.€€The€real€estate€contractÏspecifically€provided€that€the€sellers€would€have€the€property€inspected€by€aÏlicensed€and€bonded€termite€control€company€and€that€the€sellers€wouldÏð ðremedy€and€repair€any€insecurities€in€the€visible€foundation€timbers€caused€byÍtermites€or€other€wood€destroying€insects.ððÌà àIn€1982,€shortly€after€the€Taylors€purchased€the€home€and€six€yearsÏbefore€the€sale€of€the€residence€to€Jefferson,€the€Taylors€contracted€with€theÏthird€defendant,€Orkin€Pest€Control€Company,€for€insect€control.€€OrkinÏtreated€the€home€for€an€infestation€of€powder€post€beetles,€institutedÏpreventive€treatment€for€termites,€and€installed€steel€support€jacks€€underneathÏthe€house€to€limit€further€structural€damage€caused€by€the€beetles.€€At€thatÏtime€the€Taylors€entered€into€a€lifetime€renewable€termite€repair€contract€withÏOrkin.€€Under€this€contract,€Orkin€would€conduct€annual€reinspections€forÏtermites€and€would€provide€treatment€as€necessary€as€long€as€the€annual€renewalÏfee€was€paid.€€Following€the€annual€reinspection€in€1985,€additional€supportÏjacks€were€installed€under€the€home.€When€the€house€was€sold€to€Jefferson€inÏ1988,€Orkin€was€retained€to€inspect€the€home€and€provide€a€termite€reportÏpursuant€to€the€contract€of€sale.€€This€report€correctly€stated€that€there€was€noÏactive€termite€infestation,€but€failed€to€mention€any€of€the€previous€damage€toÏthe€structure.€€Ìà àJefferson€filed€suit€against€all€defendants€in€March€of€1995,€some€sevenÏyears€after€purchasing€the€home€from€the€Taylors.€€Jeffersonððs€complaint€allegesÏthat€the€Taylors€had€breached€the€contract€of€sale,€and€were€guilty€ofÍfraudulently€concealing€the€old€structural€damage€to€the€wooden€supports€of€theÏhome.€€Jefferson€also€complains€that€she€is€a€third€party€beneficiary€of€theÏtermite€treatment€and€repair€contract€between€Orkin€and€the€Taylors€and€thatÏOrkinððs€refusal€to€repair€the€previous€damage€is€a€breach€of€that€contract.€€InÏaddition,€Jefferson€complains€that€despite€the€termite€formððs€disclaimer€that€theÏreport€was€ð ðnot€a€structural€damage€report,ðð€the€failure€by€Orkin€to€noteÏexisting€damage€constituted€fraud,€or€at€least€negligence,€because€the€formÏcontained€a€blank€to€be€used€by€the€termite€inspector€to€specify€whether€thereÏwas€ð ðvisible€evidence€of€previously€treated€infestation.ðð€€Ìà àAll€defendants€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€thatÏplaintiffððs€cause€of€action€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€They€assertÏthat€since€the€gravamen€of€the€complaint€is€injury€to€real€property,€the€action€isÏbarred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€in€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105.€€They€alsoÏargue€that€even€if€the€action€were€treated€as€a€breach€of€contract€actionÏgoverned€by€the€six„year€period€in€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„109,€it€would€be€barred.Ìà àThe€record€reflects€that€plaintiff€closed€the€transaction€of€purchase€onÏMarch€21,€1988€and€occupied€the€property€shortly€thereafter.€€The€complaintÏwas€filed€March€21,€1995.Ì€€€€à àThe€trial€court€granted€the€œmotions›€for€summary€judgment€on€the€groundÍthat€there€was€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€on€the€issue€of€fraudulentÏconcealment€to€warrant€the€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Ìà àThe€œplaintiff›€Jefferson€appeals€the€œjudgments›€of€the€trial€court€andÏpresents€one€issue€for€review:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summaryÏjudgment€to€the€defendants.€€Jefferson€asserts€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€inÏthe€record€to€create€an€issue€of€fact€for€the€jury€as€to€whether€any€of€theÏdefendants€fraudulently€concealed€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action.€€Ìà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€theÏmovant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€thatÏthe€movant€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03;Ïòòò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1983);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2dÏ78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€210.€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€considerÏthe€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€theÏclose€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof;€that€is,€ð ðthe€court€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailingÏevidence.ððò ò€òòIdóó.ó ó€at€210„11.€€In€Byrd,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€thenÏdemonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€aÏgenuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€trial.€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€uponÏhis€pleadings€but€must€set€forthòò€specific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ÌÌòòÓÓò òIdóóó ó.€€at€211.€(emphasis€in€original)€(citations€omitted).€Where€a€genuine€disputeÏexists€as€to€any€material€fact€or€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€thoseÏfacts,€a€court€must€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€œ(citing›€òòò òDunnó óóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€at€80).Ìà àThe€plaintiff€emphasizes€in€her€brief€statements€in€Orkinððs€advertisingÏliterature€that€its€treatment€of€a€home€will€create€a€ð ðtermite€proof€island,ððÏhowever€there€is€no€evidence,€or€even€an€allegation,€that€there€have€been€anyÏlive€termites€in€the€home€since€Orkinððs€initial€treatment€in€1982.€€Indeed,€theÏplaintiff€admits€that€all€damage€at€issue€is€ð ðold.ðð€This€being€the€case,€even€ifÏJefferson€were€a€third„party€beneficiary€of€the€termite€contract,€her€onlyÏpossible€action€against€Orkin€would€be€based€on€the€preparation€of€the€termiteÏreport.ÌÓÓÓÓ€€€€€à àThe€plaintiff€Jefferson€claims€that€Orkinððs€failure€to€fill€in€the€blankÏrelating€to€visible€evidence€of€previously€treated€infestation€is€evidence€ofÏfraudulent€concealment€of€the€previous€damage.€€Jefferson€contends€in€her€briefÍthat€Orkin€had€a€motive€to€falsify€the€termite€report€because€it€was€still€underÏcontract€with€the€defendants€and€would€be€liable€for€any€termite€damage€thatÏoccurred€after€the€lifetime€renewable€contract€was€entered€into€in€1982.€ÏHowever,€even€if€this€did€amount€to€fraud,€a€crucial€element€of€fraudulentÏconcealment€is€lacking.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]€plaintiff€who€seeks€to€toll€a€statute€of€limitationsÏon€the€ground€of€fraudulent€concealment€must€proveÏthat€the€cause€of€action€was€known€to€andÏfraudulently€concealed€by€the€defendant.€€KnowledgeÏon€the€part€of€the€[defendant]€of€the€facts€giving€riseÏto€a€cause€of€action€is€an€essential€element€ofÏfraudulent€concealment.€Concealment€is€also€anÏessential€element€and€it€may€consist€of€withholdingÏinformation€or€making€use€of€some€device€to€mislead,Ïthus€involving€act€and€intention.Ìà8 àà àÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€Generally,€a€plaintiff€seeking€to€establishÏfraudulent€concealment€must€prove€that€the€defendantÏtook€affirmative€action€to€conceal€the€cause€of€actionÏand€that€the€plaintiff€òòcould€not€have€discovered€the€cause€ofÏaction€despite€exercising€reasonable€diligenceóó.€ÌÌÓÓòòò òBenton€v.€Snyderó óóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€414€(Tenn.€1992)€(emphasis€added)Ï(citations€omitted).€òòSee€alsoóó€òòò òSoldano€v.€Owens„Corning€Fiberglass€Corp.ó óóó,€696ÏS.W.2d€887€(Tenn.€1985)€(stating€that€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€runÏat€the€time€of€the€discovery€of€the€fraud€by€the€plaintiff€if€the€plaintiff€couldÏnot€have€discovered€his€cause€of€action€despite€exercising€reasonable€diligence);Ïòòò òHarvey€v.€Martinó óóó,€714€F.2d€650€(6th€Cir.€1983).€€Although€it€can€be€arguedÍthat€the€allegedly€incomplete€termite€report€involved€the€withholding€ofÏinformation€or€was€a€device€used€to€mislead€the€plaintiff,€there€is€no€evidenceÏthat€any€of€the€defendants€took€affirmative€action€that€would€prevent€theÏplaintiff€from€looking€in€the€basement€of€her€own€home€during€her€over€sevenÏyears€of€ownership.€€Indeed,€the€plaintiff€herself€states€in€her€affidavit€thatÏð ðmost€of€[the€old€termite€damage],€if€not€all€of€same€can€be€visually€seen€byÏsomeone€who€is€standing€in€my€basement€area.ðð€€Plaintiffððs€counsel,€inÏquestioning€the€Taylorððs€credibility,€thought€that€it€was€amazing€that€theÏTaylors€had€not€inspected€the€repair€work€in€the€basement€during€their€sixÏyears€of€ownership,€but€it€apparently€was€not€amazing€to€him€that€his€ownÏclient€had€not€visited€her€basement€in€over€seven€years.€€Though€it€may€be€trueÏthat€the€lighting€was€poor€in€the€basement€and€that€Jefferson€rarely€venturedÏthere,€these€facts€do€not€amount€to€fraudulent€concealment€on€the€part€of€anyÏof€the€defendants.€€Ìà àWith€regard€to€the€Taylors,€the€plaintiff€relies€on€their€failure€to€discloseÏthe€previous€damage€and€the€fact€that€someone€had€placed€particle€board€over€aÏportion€of€the€damaged€timber.€à àAgain,€while€this€may€be€sufficient€toÏraise€an€inference€of€attempted€concealment,€the€plaintiffððs€own€statementsÏindicate€that€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence,€or€even€a€cursory€inspectionÍof€the€basement€area,€would€reveal€the€previous€damage€and€certainly€the€metalÏsupport€jacks€used€to€prop€up€the€wooden€timbers.Ìà àIn€1986,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€dealt€with€a€factually€similar€caseÏinvolving€the€reporting€of€termite€damage€in€òòò òPietramale€v.€Dugayóóó ó,€714€S.W.2dÏ281€(Tenn.€1986).€€Theòòò ò€Pietramaleó óóó€court€held€that€the€manner€in€which€theÏdefendant€pest€control€company€issued€a€termite€letter€relied€upon€by€buyersÏcreated€an€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€the€company€breached€its€duty€to€refrainÏfrom€fraudulently€or€negligently€issuing€the€certificate.€This€case€isÏdistinguishable€from€the€case€at€bar€because€no€statute€of€limitations€issue€wasÏimplicated.€€In€seeking€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€based€on€fraudulentÏconcealment€of€a€cause€of€action,€the€plaintiffððs€exercise€of€reasonable€diligenceÏin€discovering€her€cause€of€action€is€a€controlling€factor.Ìà àSince€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€have€discovered€herÏcause€of€action€despite€exercising€reasonable€diligence,€the€plaintiff€has€failed€toÏmake€a€showing€of€fraudulent€concealment€sufficient€to€survive€the€defendantsððÏmotions€for€summary€judgment.€à àÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€orders€of€the€trial€œcourt›€granting€summary€œÌÌjudgment›€to€all€defendants€are€affirmed.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessedÍagainst€the€appellant.€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.€Ìó óÌò òCONCUR:Ìó óÌÌ_______________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌó óÌÌ________________________________Ìò òHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óœÔ€(ÔÔ€(Ô