ÿWPC % …# VUFa %§ 0 @­4í w@ P 0„X 0DÜ 0J 0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ 0dý BaU6~B)´ D3ÝDC AMS 0@ U*à/ Ù9‹¼Y_ÚÜ9v~vÓ“ AOf#Ƶ# 0D{$ D/¿$ Bî$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÚƒç"¡Ó 3|x þÿDE   Ó€(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òAugust€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòFor€convenience€the€parties€in€this€case€will€be€referred€to€asÏplaintiffs€and€defendant.€€Unless€otherwise€stated€the€parties€will€be€soÏreferred€to€throughout€this€opinion,€notwithstanding,€that€they€may€have€beenÏdesignated€differently€in€prior€litigation€in€Virginia€or€Federal€Courts.óóÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWhile€the€pleading€is€styled€"Motion€to€Dismiss"€it€is€in€the€nature€ofÏa€Rule€56€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Affidavits€and€other€materials€wereÏfiled€with€the€motion€which€were€considered€by€the€trial€court.óóÌ ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòMr.€Jenne€in€his€affidavit€deposed€that€a€substantial€amount€of€workÏwas€done€in€Tennessee€and€that€the€defendant€along€with€her€bookkeeperÏtraveled€to€Tennessee€to€work€with€him.€€These€facts€are€undisputed.ÌÌà àThere€is€a€dispute€concerning€the€place€where€the€contract€was€made.€ÏThe€plaintiffs€insist€that€the€agreement€was€entered€into€at€the€Tri„CitiesÏAirport,€however,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€contract€did€not€arise€untilÏshe€executed€a€written€contract,€which€was€circulated€in€the€U.€S.€mail.óóÌ wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€Hon.€Earl€Henley,€Chancellor,€overruled€the€motion€to€dismiss€forÏlack€of€in€personam€jurisdiction€and€then€recused€himself.€€Thereafter,€theÏHon.€Jeffrey€F.€Stewart,€Chancellor€concluded€the€case.óóÌ UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòòthe€counter„defendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment€mentioned€here€isÏthe€motion€for€summary€judgment€which€was€sustained€resulting€in€a€dismissalÏof€the€counterclaim.óóÌ ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€should€note€in€passing€that€the€counterclaim€did€make€some€›nebulousœÏreferences€to€perceived€acts€of€malpractice€attributed€to€the€plaintiffs.€€OurÏreview€of€the€record,€however,€persuades€us€that€the€counterclaim€fails€toÏstate€a€cause€of€action€for€legal€malpractice€as€a€matter€of€law.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€üXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€,/+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌROGER€E.€JENNE€and€THOMAS€L.€€€€)à àBRADLEY€CHANCERYÌRASNIC,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9704„CH„00147Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellees€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€JEFFREY€F.€STEWARTÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLOR€BY€DESIGNATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌGEORGIA€ANNE€œSNYDER„FALKINHAM,€€)›à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌMICHAEL€E.€RICHARDSON,€Patrick,€Beard€&€Richardson,€P.C.,€Chattaƒnooga,€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌE.€BLAKE€MOORE,€Spears,€Moore,€œRebman›€&€Williams,€Chattanooga,ÏROGER€JENNE,€Cleveland,€Pro€Se,€and€DAVID€F.€œHARROD›,€Athens,€forÏthe€appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€case€originated€as€an€action€to€recover€contractualÏattorney€fees€which€the€plaintiffs€claim€are€due€and€owing€forÏservices€rendered€to€the€defendant€in€a€legal€action€in€Virginia.× ƒ0 ××  ×€Ïà àThe€plaintiff,€Roger€Jenne,€is€an€attorney€and€a€resident€ofÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€with€offices€in€Cleveland.€€The€plaintiff,ÏThomas€L.€Rasnic,€is€an€attorney€licensed€to€practice€both€inÏVirginia€and€Tennessee€and€is€a€resident€of€Virginia.€€The€defen…dant€employed€the€plaintiffs€to€represent€her€in€an€action€againstÏnumerous€parties€arising€from€alleged€misdeeds€on€the€part€of€herÏbusiness€partner€and€attorney€including€other€partners€in€herÏformer€attorney's€firm.ÌÌà àTo€the€original€complaint,€the€defendant€responded€with€aÏmotion€to€dismiss€asserting€that€she€was€not€subject€to€in€perso…nam€jurisdiction€in€the€courts€of€Tennessee€for€lack€of€minimumÏcontacts.€€Alternatively,€the€defendant€asked€for€a€stay€of€pro…ceedings€pending€the€outcome€of€an€appeal€then€pending€before€theÏSupreme€Court€of€Virginia.Ì€Ìà àThe€defendant€filed€a€counterclaim€in€which,€among€otherÏthings,€she€admitted€that€she€had€employed€the€plaintiffs€toÏrepresent€her€in€the€case€against€the€Virginia€law€firm.€€SheÏfurther€avers€that€the€plaintiffs€settled€the€Virginia€case€with…out€her€permission€or€consent€and€that€an€order€of€dismissal€withÏprejudice€had€been€filed€without€her€knowledge€or€approval.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€resolved€all€issues€against€the€defendant€byÏsummary€judgments.€€This€appeal€resulted.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€presented€us€with€a€multiplicity€of€issuesÏto€consider€on€this€appeal.€€The€sum€and€substance€of€her€com…plaints,€however,€may€be€resolved€into€three€issues,€òòi.eóó.,€did€theÏTennessee€Court€have€in€personam€jurisdiction€over€the€defendant;Ïwas€the€plaintiff€collaterally€estopped€from€relitigating€theÏissue€of€whether€the€plaintiffs€had€authority€to€settle€the€Vir…ginia€case;€and€whether€the€court€erred€in€sustaining€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs€in€the€original€ac…tion.ÌÌà àWe€will€first€set€out€an€abridged€statement€of€the€factsÏleading€up€to€this€appeal.ÌÌà àWhile€the€dispute€before€us€is€simple,€the€underlying€Virgin…ia€action€has€had€a€long€and€torturous€history€in€the€VirginiaÏCourts€and€Federal€Court€culminating€in€an€appeal€to€the€VirginiaÏSupreme€Court.€òòSeeóó€òòGeorgia€Anne€œSnyder›„Falkinham€v.€Bruce€C.ÏStockburger,€et€alóó,€249€Va.€376,€457€œS.E.2d›€36€(Va.€1995).€€In€theÏVirginia€case,€when€the€defendant€here,€attempted€to€repudiate€theÏsettlement€agreement,€her€attorneys€„€plaintiffs€here€„€wereÏpermitted€to€withdraw€and€the€defendant€employed€other€counsel.€ÏBy€new€counsel,€the€defendant€sought€to€have€the€order€memorializ…ing€the€settlement€set€aside.€€After€an€adverse€decision€in€theÏtrial€court,€the€defendant€sought€an€appeal€to€the€Virginia€Su…preme€Court.€€The€issues€addressed€by€the€Virginia€Supreme€CourtÏare,€"whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€plaintiffÏ[defendant€here]€agreed€to€a€settlement€of€the€underlying€actionÏand€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€plaintiff'sÏtrial€attorneys€had€the€authority€to€have€the€action€dismissedÏwith€prejudice."€€The€Virginia€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.€Defendant€thereafter€brought€an€action€in€theÏWestern€Federal€District€Court€of€Virginia€alleging,€inter€alia,Ïthat€the€€"defendants€'conspired€with€the€Virginia€Judges€andÏJustices€of€the€Virginia€Supreme€Court'€causing€them€to€'corrupt…ly'€decide€her€appeal."€€The€suit€in€Federal€District€Court€wasÏdismissed€and€sanctions€were€imposed€on€the€defendant€and€herÏattorneys.€€The€federal€suit€is€of€little€consequence€except€in€toÏdem‚onstrate€that€the€defendant€has€had€her€day€in€court,€on€theÏmerits€of€the€issue€relating€to€the€validity€of€the€settlementÏagreement.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€overruled€the€defendant's€motionÏto€dismiss€finding€that€the€undisputed€facts€established€that€theÏdefendant€had€sufficient€contacts€with€Tennessee€to€confer€inÏpersonam€jurisdiction€upon€its€court.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€In€a€lengthy€"memorandum€ofÏlaw€in€support€of€motion€to€dismiss€or€to€stay€proceedings,"€theÏdefendant€asserts€many€facts€as€to€why€she€does€not€have€minimumÏcontacts€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€confer€jurisdiction.€€WeÏpoint€out€that€the€memorandum€is€simply€an€unsworn€statement€byÏthe€defendant's€counsel.€The€memorandum,€therefore,€cannot€beÏconsidered€except€to€the€extent€that€questions€of€law€and€authori…ties€cited€touch€the€issue€under€consideration.€€The€defendantÏalso€filed€a€lengthy€affidavit€in€support€of€her€motion.€€TheÏplaintiffs€responded€with€a€multitude€of€affidavits€and€otherÏevidence.ÌÌà àAs€noted€by€the€trial€judge,€"there€is€some€œdisparagy›€[sic]Ïbetween€the€litigants,€but€many€facts€are€consistent."€In€resolv…ing€the€minimum€contacts€question,€the€trial€court,€in€its€memo…randum€opinion€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAll€agree€the€parties€met€at€the€Tri„Cities€AirportÏin€Tennessee€to€discuss€the€possibilities€of€the€plain…tiffs€representing€the€defendant.€€All€admit€many€tele…phone€conversations€occurred€between€the€parties.€€It€isÏadmitted€that€the€defendant,€Georgia€Anne€œSnyder›„Falkinham€that€she€came€to€Cleveland€on€at€least€two€or€threeÏoccasions€relative€to€her€case.€€It€is€alleged,€and€itÏis€undoubtedly€true,€the€plaintiff,€Jenne,€spent€manyÏdays€in€Tennessee€in€preparation€of€the€defendant'sÏcase.× ƒ2 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€motion€to€dismiss€was€subsequently€overruled.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€defendant€had€sufficient€minimum€contactsÏwith€Tennessee€to€satisfy€due€process.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€"minimum€contacts"€test,€as€it€is€commonlyÏreferred,€first€requires€the€court€to€identify€theÏcontacts€between€the€non„resi‚dent€and€the€forum.€TheÏcourt€must€then€determine€whether€exercising€personalÏjurisdiction€based€on€these€contacts€is€consistent€withÏtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€jus…tice.€òòDavis€œKidd›€Booksellers,€Inc.€v.€Day„œImpex›,€Ltdóó.,Ï832€S.W.2d€572,€575€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€Davis€œKidd›€heldÏthat€both€steps€entail€"a€careful,€not€mechanical,Ïanalysis€of€the€facts€of€each€case€with€particular€focusÏon€the€defendant,€the€forum,€and€the€nature€of€theÏlitigation."€òòDavis€œKidd›óó,€832€S.W.2d€at€575.€Determina…tion€of€the€second€half€of€the€analysis€should€includeÏconsideration€of€"the€burden€on€the€defendant,€theÏinterests€of€the€forum€state,€the€plaintiff's€interestÏin€obtaining€relief,€the€judicial€system's€interest€inÏobtaining€the€most€efficient€resolution€of€controver…sies,€and€the€state's€shared€interest€in€furtheringÏfundamental,€substantive€social€policies."€Id.€ÌÌòòDiane€œMullins›€v.€Harley„Davidson€œYamaha›€BMW€of€Memphisóó,€924€S.W.2dÏ907€(Tenn.€App.€1996).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 àà àWith€respect€to€interstate€contractual€obligations,Ïwe€have€emphasized€that€parties€who€"reach€out€beyondÏone€state€and€create€continuing€relationships€and€obli…gations€with€citizens€of€another€state"€are€subject€toÏregulation€and€sanctions€in€the€other€State€for€theÏconsequences€of€their€activities.€òòTravelers€Health€œAssn›.Ïv.€Virginiaóó,€339€U.S.€643,€647,€70€S.€Ct.€927,€929,€94ÏL.Ed.€1154€(1950).€òòSee€also€œMcGee›€v.€International€LifeÏInsurance€Coóó.,€355€U.S.€220,€222„223,€78€S.€Ct.€199,Ï200„201,€2€L.Ed.2d€223€(1957).€ÌÌòòJ.€I.€Case€Corp.€v.€Williamsóó,€832€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àWe€are€satisfied€that€the€uncontroverted€evidence€in€theÏrecord€is€sufficient€to€meet€the€"minimum€contacts"€test.€€WeÏtherefore€agree€with€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€and€hold€thatÏthe€defendant€has€minimum€contacts€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€soÏthat€the€state€may€lawfully€exercise€in€personam€jurisdiction€overÏher.ÌÌà àAfter€the€resolution€of€the€question€regarding€jurisdiction,Ïthe€plaintiffs,€Jenne€and€Rasnic€filed€motions€for€summary€judg…ment€asking€the€court€to€dismiss€the€counterclaim€on€the€groundsÏthat€the€defendant€was€collaterally€estopped€from€reliti‚gating€theÏissues€that€had€been€litigated€in€the€previous€Virginia€litiga…tion.€€The€motion€was€sustained€and€the€counterclaim€was€dis…missed.€€The€motion€was€properly€supported€with€affidavits€andÏother€evidence€sufficient€to€show,€absent€competent€countervailingÏevidence,€that€they€were€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€ÏNo€such€countervailing€evidence€was€presented.€€We€have€examinedÏthe€judgment€of€the€Virginia€trial€court€and€the€decision€of€theÏVirginia€Supreme€Court€and€we€unequivocally€find€that€the€issuesÍlitigated€in€Virginia€are€the€same€as€those€sought€to€be€litigatedÏin€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€in€her€brief,€insists€that€the€trial€courtÏ"mis„characterized€the€contentions"€raised€in€her€counterclaim.€ÏWe€have€reviewed€the€counterclaim€carefully€and€have€reached€theÏconclusion€that€the€counterclaim€is€nothing€more€than€an€attemptÏto€relitigate€the€issues€resolved€in€the€trial€court€and€theÏSupreme€Court€of€Virginia€and€that€under€the€laws€of€this€stateÏthe€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€was€properly€applied.ÌÌà àOne€of€the€leading€cases€in€this€jurisdiction€regardingÏcollateral€estoppel€is€òòMorris€v.€œEsmark›€Apparel,€Incóó.,€832€S.W.2dÏ563,€566€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€wherein€the€following€teachings€are€toÏbe€found:ÌÌÓÓà8 àœà àThis›€court€in€reviewing€whether€the€application€ofÏcollateral€estoppel€is€appropriate€should€consider:€(1)Ïwhether€the€issue€decided€in€the€prior€adjudication€wasÏidentical€with€the€issue€presented€in€the€present€ac…tion;€(2)€whether€the€prior€adjudication€resulted€in€aÏjudgment€on€the€merits;€(3)€whether€the€party€againstÏwhom€collateral€estoppel€is€asserted€was€a€party€or€inÏprivity€with€a€party€to€the€prior€adjudication;€and€(4)Íwhether€the€party€against€whom€collateral€estoppel€isÏasserted€had€a€full€and€fair€opportunity€to€litigate€theÏissue€in€the€prior€suit.€òòSeeóó€òòœBresnahan›€[v.€May€Depart…ment€Stores€Coóó.,€726€S.W.2d€327€(œMo.Banc›€1987)]€at€330;ÏòòSalida€School€District€R„32„J€v.€Morrisonóó,€732€P.2d€1160Ï(Colo.€1987).€ÌÌòòMorrisóó€at€page€566.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThere€is€another€case,€however,€applying€the€doctrine€ofÏcollateral€estoppel€involving€the€same€issue.€€In€the€unreportedÏcase€of€òòMcDaniel€v.€Stambaughóó,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€255€thisÏcourt€was€faced€with€an€almost€identical€question.€€In€òòMcDanielóó,Ïthe€plaintiff€employed€Stambaugh€to€represent€her€in€a€personalÏinjury€claim.€€The€claim€was€subsequently€settled.€€The€plaintiffÏclaimed€that€she€did€not€agree€to€the€settlement€and€refused€toÏabide€by€the€terms€of€the€settlement.€€The€defendant€in€that€case,Ïbrought€an€action€for€specific€performance€of€the€settlementÏagreement.€€McDaniel€defended€that€action€on€the€grounds€that€herÏattorney€did€not€have€authority€to€settle€the€claim€and€that€sheÏdid€not€agree€to€the€settlement.€€The€suit€was€tried€and€resultedÏin€a€judgment€on€the€merits€against€McDaniel.€€McDaniel€subse…quently€sued€Stambaugh€claiming€damages€for€settling€the€claimÏagainst€her€wishes.€€This€court,€in€the€suit€between€McDaniel€andÍStambaugh€focused€on€the€tests€set€out€in€òòMorrisóó,€supra.€€It€isÏinstructive€to€quote€at€some€length€from€òòMcDanielóó€in€order€toÏdemonstrate€that€this€case€and€òòMcDanielóó€touch€on€all€four€corners.€ÏIn€òòMcDanielóó,€we€find€the€following€analysis:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€the€specific€performance€suit,€the€issue€decidedÏby€that€Court€was€whether€Ms.€McDaniel€gave€Mr.ÏStambaugh€the€authority€to€settle€her€lawsuit€forÏ$50,000.€The€Court€found€that€she€did€give€Mr.€StambaughÏthis€authority.€In€order€for€Ms.€McDaniel€to€recover€inÏthis€suit€she€must€prove€that€Mr.€Stambaugh€settledÏwithout€her€authority.€Since€it€has€already€been€judi…cially€determined€that€she€did€give€Mr.€Stambaugh€theÏauthority€to€settle,€the€first€element€is€satisfied.ÌÌ€à8 àà àThe€second€element€has€also€been€satisfied€becauseÏthe€prior€adjudication€did€result€in€a€judgment€on€theÏmerits.€The€specific€performance€suit€resulted€in€theÏopposing€party€being€granted€specific€performance€andÏMs.€McDaniel€being€forced€to€accept€the€$50,000.€ÌÌà8 àà àIn€this€suit,€collateral€estoppel€is€being€assertedÏagainst€Ms.€McDaniel€who€was€a€party€in€the€specificÏperformance€suit.€Mr.€Stambaugh€did€not€have€to€be€aÏparty€in€the€specific€performance€suit.€òòSeeóó€òòœFourakre›€v.ÏPerryóó,€667€S.W.2d€483€(œTenn.€›App.€1983),€(holding€thatÏmutuality€of€parties€is€not€necessary€for€collateralÏestoppel).€Thus,€the€third€element€of€collateral€estop…pel€has€been€satisfied.Ì€Ìà8 àà àThe€final€element€of€collateral€estoppel€has€alsoÏbeen€satisfied€because€Ms.€McDaniel€was€afforded€a€fullÏand€fair€opportunity€in€the€specific€performance€suit€toÏlitigate€the€issue€of€whether€she€gave€Mr.€Stambaugh€theÏauthority€to€settle€the€original€tort€suit€for€$50,000.€ÌÓÓÌà àWe€are€unable€to€œperceive€any€real€or›€distinguishable€œdiffer…ence€between›€òòMcDanielóó€œand›€the€case€at€hand.€€We€find€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€err€in€sustaining€the€plaintiffs'€motions€forÏsummary€judgment€based€on€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel.ÌÌà àThe€final€question€to€be€resolved€is€whether€the€court€erredÏin€sustaining€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiffs€in€the€original€action.€€The€plaintiffs€in€their€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€asserted€that€there€was€no€genuine€issue€ofÏany€material€fact€and€that€they€were€entitled€to€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€In€support€of€their€motion,€both€plaintiffs€filedÏaffidavits€giving€an€itemized€listing€of€expenses€advanced€in€theÏVirginia€case,€relied€upon€a€copy€of€the€contingency€contractÏbetween€the€plaintiffs€and€the€defendant€which€provided€for€aÏcontingent€fee€of€40%€of€the€amount€recovered€plus€expenses€andÏfurther€provided€that€the€plaintiffs€would€have€a€lien€on€anyÏrecovery.€€The€evidence€presented€by€the€plaintiffs€in€support€ofÏœtheir€motion€for›€summary€œjudgment,€if€unrebutted,›€was€sufficientÏto€entitle€them€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€burden,Ítherefore,€shifted€to€the€defendant€to€come€forth€with€competentÏevidence€to€demonstrate€that€a€genuine€issue€of€a€material€factÏexisted.€€In€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€the€court€clearly€œsetÏout›€the€responsibilities€of€the€parties.€€In€òòByrdóó€it€is€said:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[œT]he›€cases€make€clear€that€the€party€seekingÏsummary€judgment€must€carry€the€burden€of€persuading€theÏcourt€that€no€genuine€and€material€factual€issues€existÏand€that€it€is,€therefore,€entitled€to€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€(Citations€omitted).€€Once€it€is€shown€byÏthe€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demon…strate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€thereÏis€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€Ï(Citations€omitted).€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€providesÏthat€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€hisÏpleadings€but€must€set€forth€specific€facts€showing€thatÏthere€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.€"IfÏhe€does€not€so€respond,€summary€judgment€.€.€.€shall€beÏentered€against€him."€Rule€56.05.€If€the€motion€isÏdenied,€the€moving€party€"has€simply€lost€a€preliminaryÏskirmish€and€must€proceed€to€trial."€(Citation€omitted).ÌÌòòByrdóó,€at€page€211.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€defendant€responded€to€the€plaintiffs'€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€with€an€unsworn€statement€by€her€attorney€which€attemptsÏto€point€out€existing€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€copiesÏof€Virginia€law€relating€to€conduct€of€attorneys.€€Her€attorney€inÍhis€statement€asserted€that€the€defendant€adopted€and€incorporatedÏby€reference€her€response€to€the€counter„defendants'€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Our€review€of€the€record€persuades€us€that€theÏdefendant€has€failed€to€meet€the€burden€imposed€upon€her€by€òòByrdóó,Ïsupra.€€We€find€no€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€in€sus…taining€the€plaintiffs'€motion€for€summary€judgment.œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€are€assessed€to€the€defendant€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÇÑ  ÑÑ7€«XXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌROGER€E.€JENNE€and€THOMAS€L.€€€€)à àBRADLEY€CHANCERYÌRASNIC,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9704„CH„00147Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellees€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€JEFFREY€F.€STEWARTÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLOR€BY€DESIGNATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌGEORGIA€ANNE€œSNYDER„FALKINHAM,€›€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Bradley€County€and€briefs€filed€on€behalf€of€theÏrespective€parties.€Upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€ofÏopinion€that€there€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€are€assessed€to€the€defendant€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM