ÿWPC  …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0D{U:¿ 0Jù 0TC 0^— 0hõ 0r] 0|Ï 0†K 0Ñ 1ua U,Ö 0d U,f U>’ sÐ U*CB)mDC– AMÙ& BAv~^vÓÜ D3¯ 0@â AO"Æq 0D7 0D{ D/¿ Bî˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ÙP ç>J§D·^·x (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡˜€* tember3|xÕ (3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman iÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Ó< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFebruary€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÖ€ÖÓ  ÓÑ X ÑÑ X ÑÔ€ Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\Ñòòà@ àóóIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà@ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌCARL€NELSON,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€33066€T.D.ó óÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|Ö` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9403„CV„00043Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌHAROLD€EUGENE€MARTIN€andà à)ÌJACK€W.€GAMMON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà àò ò)ÌÌÌó óà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€M.€THARPE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌò òGAVIN€M.€GENTRYÌARMSTRONG,€ALLEN,€PREWITT,ÌGENTRY,€JOHNSTON€&€HOLMESÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌò òJ.€CECIL€MCWHIRTERÌPAUL€M.€O'BRIENÌMCWHIRTER€&€WYATTÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee€MartinÌÌò òLEO€BEARMAN,€JR.ÌHEISKELL,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN,€ÌADAMS,€WILLIAMS€&€CALDWELLÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee€GammonÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART,ÌAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€JUDGEÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€arises€from€the€termination€of€appellant,€Carl€Nelson,€as€employee,Ïofficer€Ñ7€ ¬ XXdæXXdì7Ñand€director€of€B€&€M€Printing€Company.€€€The€pertinent€facts€are€as€follows:€€InÏ1968,€Nelson,€together€with€appellees,€Harold€E.€Martin€and€Jack€W.€Gammon,€formedÏa€partnership€named€B€&€M€Printing€Company€for€the€purpose€of€engaging€in€theÏcommercial€printing€business.€€€In€1969,€the€three€partners€converted€the€partnershipÏinto€a€corporation€and€were€issued€100€shares€each€of€the€corporation's€stock.€ThereÏwere€no€other€shareholders€in€the€corporation.€€€Nelson,€Gammon€and€Martin€were€allÏemployed€by€the€corporation€and€acted€as€the€corporation's€only€officers€and€directors.€€ÏThe€presidency€of€the€corporation€was€initially€rotated€between€the€three€parties€everyÏyear,€but€at€the€time€of€€Nelson's€termination,€Martin€was€the€president€and€had€beenÏfor€several€years.€€The€parties€received€no€compensation€for€their€€duties€as€officersÏand€directors,€but€did€receive€salaries,€commissions€based€on€individual€sales,€andÏbonuses€as€employees€of€the€corporation.€€€In€addition,€the€parties€received€rentÏmoney€from€the€corporation€through€their€partnership,€BCJ€Enterprises,€which€ownedÏthe€property€on€which€B€&€M€Printing€Company€was€located.€ÌÌà àIn€March€1989,€Nelson€and€Martin€were€involved€in€a€dispute€over€one€of€theÏcorporation's€printing€accounts€that€Nelson€serviced.€€According€to€Martin,€during€theÏargument,€Nelson€cursed€at€him€and€said,€"You€G.D.M.F.,€you€don't€tell€me€what€to€do.€ÍI'll€do€what€I€want€to€do."€€Martin€testified€in€his€deposition€that€he€then€told€Nelson€thatÏhe€couldn't€continue€to€work€for€the€corporation€with€that€attitude€and€Nelson€stormedÏout.€€€Martin€further€testified€that€a€second€confrontation€occurred€a€few€days€laterÏduring€which€Nelson€once€again€cursed€at€Martin€and€stated,€"You€G.D.M.F.,€I'll€doÏwhat€I€want€to€do.€€You€don't€tell€me€what€to€do€and€I'll€walk€all€over€you.€€You€don'tÏhave€no€right.€€You€cannot€fire€me€from€this€company€and€I'll€walk€all€over€you€beforeÏyou€do€it."€€At€that€point,€Martin€testified,€that€he€informed€Nelson,€"€I€am€going€toÏterminate€you€from€this€company€with€that€attitude."€€€Nelson€testified€that€he€did€notÏrecall€what€was€said€during€the€meeting,€but€admitted€that€he€had€no€way€of€refutingÏMartin's€testimony€regarding€the€incident.€€Nelson€did€testify€€however,€that€he€neverÏused€the€word€M.F.€and€also€disputed€Martin's€testimony€that€a€second€meetingÏoccurred€between€the€parties.€ÌÌà à€€Following€the€confrontation,€Martin€gave€Nelson€a€letter€informing€him€that€heÏwas€terminated€as€an€employee€of€the€corporation.€€Thereafter,€a€board€of€directorsÏmeeting€was€called€at€which€Nelson€was€represented€by€his€attorney€who€had€fullÏproxy€to€vote€on€his€behalf.€€At€this€meeting,€Martin€and€Gammon,€representing€a€two„thirds€majority,€€voted€to€remove€Nelson€as€an€officer€of€the€corporation.€€Likewise,Ïacting€as€a€majority€of€the€shareholders,€they€€voted€to€remove€Nelson€as€a€director€ofÏthe€corporation.€€B€&€M€Printing€Company's€corporate€bylaws€allowed€for€both€theÏtermination€of€Nelson€by€the€president€of€the€corporation€and€his€removal€as€an€officerÏand€director.€€€Nelson€remained€an€equal€shareholder€in€the€corporation.€€Nelson,ÏGammon€and€Martin€sold€their€stock€in€1992€for€€over€€$6,000,000.ÌÌà àNelson€testified€that€when€he€first€learned€of€his€termination€by€a€letter€handedÏto€him€by€Martin€he€was€completely€taken€aback.€€€According€to€Nelson,€over€theÍcourse€of€the€parties'€20„year€business€relationship,€the€three€men€had€experiencedÏdifferences€of€opinion€and€had€often€cursed€at€each€other.€€In€Nelson's€opinion,Ïcursing€a€co„founder€was€not€a€legitimate€justification€for€his€termination.€€In€addition,ÏNelson€alleged€that€the€corporation€lost€good€will€and€sales€from€customers€which€theÏplaintiff€had€been€contacting€as€a€salesman€for€the€company,€thereby€indicating€thatÏhis€termination€was€not€a€prudent€business€decision.€ÌÌà àNelson€filed€suit€against€Martin€and€Gammon€on€March€13,€1990,€seekingÏreimbursement€for€monetary€losses€sustained€by€Nelson€as€a€result€of€his€terminationÏas€an€employee,€officer€and€director€of€B€&€M€Printing€Company.€€€Nelson€alleged€fourÏcounts€of€wrongdoing€by€Martin€and€Gammon.€€€First,€Nelson€alleged€that€Martin€andÏGammon€conspired€together,€with€malice€and€for€personal€gain,€to€interfere€withÏNelson's€contractual€relationship€with€the€corporation€by€inducing€the€corporation€toÏterminate€his€employment.€€Second,€Nelson€alleged€that€the€defendants€conspiredÏtogether€to€interfere€with€a€prospective€advantage€to€Nelson.€€€Third,€Nelson€allegedÏthat€the€defendants€violated€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€which€makes€it€unlawful€for€anyÏperson€to€induce€or€procure€the€breach€of€any€lawful€contract.€€€Finally,€Nelson€allegedÏthat€the€three€founders€of€B€&€M€Printing€were€in€a€fiduciary€relationship€to€each€otherÏand€the€defendants€breached€this€fiduciary€duty€when€they€terminated€Nelson€withÏmalice€and€for€personal€gain.€€ÌÌà àBoth€Martin€and€Gammon€filed€motions€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claimÏupon€which€relief€can€be€granted€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02€(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure.€€€In€a€memorandum€opinion,€the€trial€judge€granted€defendants'Ïmotions€as€to€Count€II€dealing€with€interference€with€a€prospective€advantage€andÏdenied€the€motions€as€to€the€remaining€counts.€€€€After€engaging€in€discovery,€theÍdefendants€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment€arguing€that€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€existed€in€the€case.€€After€oral€argument,€the€trial€judge,€without€anÏopinion,€granted€defendants'€motions€for€summary€judgment€as€to€Counts€I,€III€and€IVÏof€€Nelson's€complaint.€€€Nelson€has€appealed.€ÌÌÓ  Óà àòòCOUNTS€I€&€IIIóóÌÓ  Óà àWe€will€discuss€counts€I€and€III€together€as€they€both€involve€breach€of€contractÏclaims.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Nelson€did€not€have€a€written€contract€of€employment€withÏB€&€M€Printing€Company.€€€Nelson,€however,€avers€that€he€had€an€oral€lifetimeÏemployment€contract€with€the€corporation€pursuant€to€a€"general€agreement"€betweenÏMartin,€Gammon€and€himself.€€ÌÌà àThe€law€in€Tennessee€is€clear,€that€"an€oral€contract€for€life€time€employment€orÏpermanent€employment€amounts€to€an€indefinite€hiring€terminable€at€the€will€of€eitherÏparty...."€€òòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€924,€934€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€ItÏis€equally€clear,€that€an€at„will€employee€can€be€discharged€for€good€cause,€badÏcause,€or€no€cause€at€all.€€òòChism€v.€Mid„South€Milling€Co.,€Inc.óó,€762€S.W.2d€552,€555Ï(Tenn.€1988).€€€Thus,€a€terminated€employee€with€an€oral€lifetime€employment€contractÏdoes€not€have€an€actionable€claim€against€his€employer€for€breach€of€contractÏbecause€there€is€no€contractual€right€to€continued€employment.€Likewise,€there€can€beÏno€recovery€for€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€under€common€law€or€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109.€€€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó,€869€S.W.2d€328,€330€(Tenn.€1994).€€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has,€however,€€recognized€the€tort€of€intentionalÏinterference€with€at„will€employment.€€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€330.€€ÏUnder€this€theory,€"intentional€interference€with€at„will€employment€by€a€third€party,Íwithout€privilege€or€justification,€is€actionable."€òòIdóó.€€€While€this€tort€has€been€applied€toÏactions€of€corporate€directors€and€officers€who€intentionally€interfere€with€the€at„willÏemployment€of€corporate€employees,€we€conclude,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€NelsonÏcannot€state€a€cause€of€action€against€either€defendant€for€intentional€interference€withÏat„will€employment.ÌÌà àIn€òòForresteróó,€the€€Supreme€Court€stated€that€an€employee€may€only€maintain€aÏsuit€for€intentional€interference€with€at„will€employment€against€officers€or€directors€of€aÏcorporation€if€"the€proof€establishes€that€they€[the€officers€or€directors]€stood€as€thirdÏparties€to€the€employment€relationship€at€the€time€they€performed€the€acts€found€toÏhave€caused€[the€employee's]€discharge."€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€331.€€€ÏNeither€Martin€nor€Gammon€can€€be€considered€€a€third€party€to€the€transaction.€€At€theÏtime€of€Nelson's€termination,€B€&€M€Printing€Company€was€a€close€corporation.€ÏNelson,€Martin€and€Gammon€were€the€sole€shareholders,€sole€directors€and€soleÏofficers.€€As€such,€Nelson,€Martin€and€Gammon€òòwere€óóB€&€M€Printing€Company.€€ÌÌà à€A€party€to€a€business€relationship€cannot€tortiously€interfere€with€himself.€€òòBakerÏv.€Welchóó,€735€S.W.2d€548,€549€(Tex.€App.€1987).€€Thus,€where€the€officer€or€director€€isÏso€closely€aligned€with€his€corporation€that€they€are€treated€as€one€entity,€theÏindividual€€is€considered€€the€corporation's€alter€ego.€òòIdóó.€€€As€such,€it€cannot€be€saidÏthat€an€individual€tortiously€interfered€with€himself€by€inducing€himself€to€terminate€anÏat„will€employee.€€òòIdóó.€€€In€the€present€case,€€Martin€and€Gammon€are€alter€egos€of€B€&ÏM€Printing€Company.€€€They€therefore€cannot€be€held€liable,€as€third€parties,€forÏintentional€interference€with€Nelson's€at„will€employment.€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓòòCOUNT€IIóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€declined€to€recognize€the€tort€of€intentionalÏinterference€with€prospective€economic€advantage.€€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€Co.,€Inc.€v.€BluffÏCity€Buick€Co.,€Inc.óó,€876€S.W.2d€818€(Tenn.€1994).€€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€trialÏcourt's€dismissal€of€this€count€for€failure€to€state€a€claim.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòCOUNT€IVóóÌÓ  Óà àGenerally,€majority€shareholders€owe€a€fiduciary€relationship€to€minorityÏshareholders.€€òòJohns€v.€Caldwellóó,€601€S.W.2d€37€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€In€cases€dealingÏwith€close€corporations,€where€the€majority€shareholders€can€use€their€voting€power€toÏthe€disadvantage€of€minority€shareholders,€many€courts€have€borrowed€a€rule€fromÏpartnership€law€and€have€held€that€€majority€shareholders€in€a€close€corporation€haveÏa€heightened€fiduciary€obligation€to€minority€shareholders.€€òòWilkes€v.€SpringsideÏNursing€Home,€Inc.óó,€353€N.E.2d€657€(Mass.€1976);€€òòHallahan€v.€Haltom€Corp.óó,€385ÏN.E.2d€1033€(Mass.€App.€1979);€òòApplication€of€Tainesóó,€444€N.Y.S.2d€540€(N.Y.€Sup.ÏCt.€1981);€òòCrosby€v.€Beamóó,€548€N.E.2d€217€(Ohio€1989);€òòW€&€W€Equipment€Co.,€Inc.€v.ÏMinkóó,€568€N.E.2d€564€(Ind.€App.€1991);€òòGigax€v.€Repkaóó,€615€N.E.2d€644€(Ohio€App.Ï1992).€€€Under€this€heightened€standard,€the€majority€shareholders€€are€held€to€act€inÏstrict€good€faith€and€"may€not€act€out€of€avarice,€expediency€or€self„interest€inÏderogation€of€their€duty€of€loyalty€to€the€other€€stockholders€and€to€the€corporation."ÏòòWilkes€v.€Springside€Nursing€Home,€Inc.óó,€353€N.E.2d€at€662.€€€Thus,€majorityÏshareholders€are€required€to€deal€fairly,€honestly€and€openly€with€minorityÏshareholders€and€may€not€use€their€€corporate€control€to€prevent€€the€minority€fromÏhaving€an€equal€opportunity€in€the€corporation.€€€€òòW€&€W€Equipment€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Minkóó,Ï568€N.E.2d€at€570;€òòCrosby€v.€Beamóó,€548€N.E.2d€at€221.€When€the€majority€acts€to€denyÏemployment€to€the€minority,€who€usually€depend€on€salary,€bonuses€and€retirementÏbenefits€to€recognize€a€return€on€the€corporate€investment,€the€controlling€group€mustÍprove€that€it€had€a€legitimate€business€purpose€for€its€action.€€òòWilkes€v.€SpringsideÏNursing€Home,€Inc.óó,€353€N.E.2d€at€663;€€òòGigax€v.€Repkaóó,€615€N.E.2d€at€€648.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€above€principles,€it€is€clear€that€Martin€and€Gammon,€asÏcontrolling€shareholders€of€a€close€corporation,€had€a€fiduciary€duty€to€deal€honestlyÏand€fairly€with€Nelson.€€€It€is€unclear€from€the€record,€however,€if€and€to€what€extentÏGammon€was€involved€in€Nelson's€termination.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Gammon€was€notÏpresent€at€any€time€during€the€confrontations€between€Nelson€and€Martin€and,Ïaccording€to€Martin,€Gammon€was€not€involved€in€the€decision€to€terminate€Nelson.€ÏHowever,€both€Gammon€and€Martin€ratified€the€decision€to€discharge€Nelson€at€theÏMarch€25,€1989,€board€meeting.€€Ìà àIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€principles,€we€hold€that€Martin€mustÏdemonstrate€a€legitimate€business€reason€for€using€their€two„thirds€voting€power€toÏterminate€Nelson€as€an€officer,€director€and€an€employee€of€B€&€M€Printing€Company.€ÏMartin€testified€in€his€deposition€that€he€fired€Nelson€because€Nelson€cursed€him€andÏhad€a€bad€attitude.€€€Nelson€testified€that€the€three€shareholders€had€cursed€at€eachÏother€before€and€that€this€was€not€a€legitimate€reason€for€his€termination.€€Whether€orÏnot€it€is€legitimate€to€fire€a€co„owner€because€he€cursed€at€another€owner€is€an€issueÏfor€the€trier€of€fact€who€must€consider€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€the€priorÏcourse€of€dealings€between€the€parties.€€Therefore,€summary€judgment€as€to€this€issueÏwas€inappropriate.€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€Gammon,€the€trial€court€must€first€determine€whether€GammonÏplayed€a€part€in€Nelson's€termination.€€If€so,€then€Gammon€must€also€demonstrate€aÏlegitimate€business€reason€for€such€termination.€€€Conversely,€if€it€is€determined€thatÏGammon€was€not€sufficiently€involved€in€the€termination,€then€summary€judgment€wasÍproperly€granted€as€to€him.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€ruling€as€to€Counts€I,€II,Ïand€III€of€the€plaintiff's€complaint€and€reverse€and€remand€for€trial€as€to€Count€IV.€ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€the€parties.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSUMMERS,€SP.€J.€