ÿWPCO  <7¯MÎskÑ«b*£Ä=0%I <ÐZâØré²RMM2Ú%"j¨r4 mQ2³æÓs# ³Y*6ôw <ô^(ÿ ×ÉØ“öT½„R77KÑo g elò‹U7À/‡ ªßoÓ¸MwA''§ÿq?Æ8Q…Ó–óÚ‡ ¾±Ïqú#/iú…B)Oh«@×›)f'›KH:§á»+ò´awþ Ð÷D쑽RRôÏ ’(ó%!ƒzI0´PœÏ¥Ãw¾_Wtà<úC À©ûÊ ¾’:´«™”˜—è>õ ØM;(üç)^»òÍdÆ“0ôâK±Û‘X_X4 e߀³42à>¯;!KÜwÌK„ö¤~ðšÓW$¥˜§µR ­ÒÇpïÃG´nsER;MVo%Iá!ß»ž*6¿§ëg—õX'´ÏÂmß·oyœ²oã0åλ`›n«‚TÞ)ɲB ‰ïüQá\½Äs®§ò.S§Cx òƒÛ¦·ýQígTŒ>÷K®vôžÄ¸-®Žð„Ÿì)&oF™§î‡BG“ÎÉËÒóÔ;˜/¡‰j4S[#m…ñ €P!¡n· Y³ÀªD¾³†Qé›ð1õ³nˆ†ëôƒÜ*¼4W#ÁÂU:ƒ %½ 0:ÃU@ýU N= U,‹ ^ · wà 4Ç Û ê mì ì -       E0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B2 ˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus,ð,,,,,ð0,æ«) AZ"Arial Regularõ(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹Arial jO-s ä]ö,¤£opÄå 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ #Ñ#€mõÿÿd#Ñ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡õÆÿõõõÔÔ‡î$OîõõÆÿÔÑ€DÃÑÌà@ü ü ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü, Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†õÆÿõîî$Oh#ÔÔ‡¼k|»õõÆÿԈРX ÐÓ  ÓJANUARY€23,€2002€SessionÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†õÆÿõ»¼k|$#ÔÔ‡Xv»XõõÆÿÔÌò òÔ#†õÆÿõXXv»µ#ÔÔ‡î$OîõõÆÿÔJOHN€Ô_ÔASBURYÔ_Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ô_ÔLAGONIAÔ_Ô„SHERMAN,€LLC,€òòet€alóó.Ô#†õÆÿõîî$Oû#ÔÔ‡Xv»XõõÆÿÔó óÐ < Œ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ X ¨ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CT„001369„00;€The€Honorable€Ô_ÔDððArmyÔ_Ô€Bailey,€JudgeÐ H ˜ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ h  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01821„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ g  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<ö` AßÐ ÷G Ðó óÔ#†X¡ XXXv»I#ÔÔ‡X4 X XX¡ÔÌÌò òDISSENTING€OPINIONó óÐ Þ. ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÓÓà  àI€must€respectfully€dissent.Ð ¢ò ÐÌà  àThe€majority€in€this€case€has€struggled€heroically€to€establish€what€the€record€does€notÐ zÊ Ðsupport,€namely,€that€the€trial€judge€decided€this€case€on€summary€judgment€rather€than€on€aÐ f¶ Ðdismissal€for€failure€to€state€a€claim.Ð R¢ ÐÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€quite€clear€and€explicit.€It€states:Ð *z ÐÌà@š š ìàORDER€OF€DISMISSAL€WITH€PREJUDICEˆÐ R ÐÌà  àThis€matter€came€on€for€hearing€before€the€Honorable€Ô_ÔDððArmyÔ_Ô€Bailey,€Judge€of€Division€8Ð Ú * Ðof€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€for€the€Thirtieth€Judicial€District€of€Memphis,€onÐ Æ!  Ðthe€15òòthóó€day€of€June,€2001€on€the€Defendantsðð€Motion€to€Dismiss€or,€In€the€Alternative,€for€SummaryÐ ²"! ÐJudgment€pursuant€to€Rules€12.02(6)€and€56,€respectively,€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ ž#î" ÐProcedure.€€It€appearing€to€the€Court€that€the€Plaintiffs€have€failed€to€state€a€cause€of€action€for€whichÐ Š$Ú# Ðrelief€may€be€granted,Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌà  àIT€IS€THEREFORE€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€AND€DECREED€that€this€case€is€dismissedÐ N'ž"& Ðwith€prejudice€and€all€costs€of€this€action€are€taxed€to€the€Plaintiff€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ :(Š#' Ðnecessary.Ð &)v$( ÐÌà  àENTERED€THIS€òò€€€€6€€€óó€Day€of€òò€€July€€€óó,€2001.Ð þ*N&* ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò/s/€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Ö,&(, Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àHonorable€Ô_ÔDððArmyÔ_Ô€BaileyÐ Â-)- ÐÑDÃÑâ âÑ8€ÆÿõõdÊdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÌà  àThe€trial€judge€noted€that€the€motion€was€for€dismissal€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02(6)€or,€in€theÐ œì Ðalternative,€for€summary€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€56,€after€which€the€court€clearly€stated:€ð ðItÐ ˆØ Ðappearing€to€the€Court€that€the€Plaintiffs€have€òòfailed€to€state€a€cause€of€actionóó€for€which€relief€mayÐ tÄ Ðbe€granted...ðð€(emphasis€supplied).€€This€is€the€language€of€Rule€12,€not€Rule€56.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€majority€relies€on€the€language€of€Rule€12.02€which€states,€in€pertinent€part:€€ð ðIf...mattersÐ 8 ˆ Ðoutside€the€pleading€are€presented€to€and€not€excluded€by€the€court,€the€motion€shall€be€treated€asÐ $ t Ðone€for€summary€judgment€and€disposed€of€as€provided€in€Rule€56...ðð€€It€is€true€that€extraneousÐ  ` Ðmatters€were€filed€herein€because€the€motion€was€framed€in€the€alternative€òòeitheróó€as€a€motion€toÐ ü L  Ðdismiss€or€as€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€but€there€is€not€a€scintilla€of€proof€that€the€trial€judgeÐ è 8  Ðconsidered€such€matters€in€making€his€ruling€or€that€he€was€confused€or€mistaken€about€the€basis€forÐ Ô$  Ðhis€ruling.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIt€is€correctly€noted€by€the€majority€that€the€trial€court€ð ðneed€not€òòexpresslyóó€state€that€it€hasÐ ˜è  Ðchosen€to€exclude€such€matters€filed€with€the€motion,ðð€but€ð ðthere€must€be€some€indicia€that€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€in€fact€excluded€the€additional€information.ðð€€One€wonders€how€this€could€have€been€moreÐ pÀ Ðplainly€done€by€the€trial€court€short€of€an€express€exclusion.€€The€order€bore€the€caption:€ð ðORDERÐ \¬ ÐOF€DISMISSAL€WITH€PREJUDICE.ðð€€The€first€sentence€declared:€ð ðThis€matter€came€on€forÐ H˜ Ðhearing...on€the€Defendantsðð€Motion...ðð€€It€did€òònot€óósay,€ð ðThis€matter€came€on€for€hearing€on€theÐ 4„ ÐDefendantsðð€Motion,€depositions€and€affidavits€filed€herein,€and€the€entire€record€in€the€cause.ðð€€ThatÐ  p Ðomission€is€significant.€€This€case€falls€squarely€with€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòWinchester€v.€Littleóó,Ð  \ Ð996€S.W.2d€818,€821€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998),€in€which€we€stated:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€trial€courtððs€order€is€couched€in€terms€of€a€dismissal€rather€thanÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment.€The€trial€judge€states€that€his€opinion€is€basedÐ ¼  Ðupon€the€pleadings€and€argument€of€Plaintiff€and€counsel€forÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant.€€òòNo€mention€is€made€of€consideration€of€any€mattersÐ ”ä Ðoutside€the€pleadings.óó€(emphasis€supplied).ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌLikewise,€in€the€present€case,€(1)€the€trial€judge€couched€his€ruling€in€terms€of€a€dismissal,€and€(2)Ð X ¨ Ðno€mention€is€made€of€consideration€of€any€matters€outside€the€pleadings.€€This€certainly€indicatesÐ D!” Ðthat€outside€matters€were€ð ðexcludedðð€by€the€trial€court.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÔ#†X¡ X XX4S#ÔÔ‡X‹;X XX¡Ôà  àÔ#†X¡ XXX‹;&#ÔÔ‡X4 X XX¡ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔPendletonÔ_Ô€v.€Millsóó,€73€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€3d€115,€the€trial€court€specifically€considered€the€motion€ð ðonÐ $X" Ðthe€pleadings€and€other€materials€submitted.ðð€€In€òòAli„Al„Ô_ÔFatlawyÔ_Ô€v.€John€Doeóó,€CA,€MS,€filed€MarchÐ ô$D # Ð29,€2000,€plaintiff€relied€ð ðon€the€affidavit€of€Officer€James€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô.ðð€€Judge€Susano€says€ð ðthe€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€considered€it,ðð€and€the€motion€became€one€for€summary€judgment.€€In€òòPass€v.€Shelby€Aviationóó,Ð Ì&"% ÐCA,€WS,€filed€April€13,€2000,€Judge€Ô_ÔLillardÔ_Ô€correctly€points€out€that€the€motion€to€dismiss€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðpredicated€not€just€on€the€pleadings€but€on€the€ð ðentire€record€in€the€cause,ðð€and€therefore€became€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsummary€judgment€motion.€€In€òòJordan€v.€Campbellóó,€CA,€MS,€filed€November€10,€1999,€we€foundÐ )à$( Ðthe€motion€to€be€one€for€summary€judgment€ð ðbecause€the€trial€court€considered€material€outside€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€pleadings.ðð€€Ð h+¸&* ÐÐ T,¤'+ Ðà  àI€agree€that€in€most€cases€where€extraneous€matters€are€filed,€we€have€found€the€motion€wasÐ ° Ðconverted€from€a€Rule€12€to€a€Rule€56.€€But€I€do€not€find€any€of€the€factors€that€are€cited€in€the€aboveÐ œì Ðcases€to€be€present€in€this€case.€€Bear€in€mind€there€is€no€transcript€in€this€case.€€The€trial€courtððsÐ ˆØ Ðorder€is€the€only€document€in€the€record€stating€what€he€considered.€€The€trial€judge€knew€the€motionÐ tÄ Ðwas€for€a€Rule€12.02€(6)€dismissal€or,€in€the€alternative,€for€summary€judgment.€€He€cites€this€in€hisÐ `° Ðorder.€€Yet,€he€purposely€elected€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€ð ðstate€a€cause€of€action.ðð€€Further,€his€orderÐ L œ Ðnowhere€reflects€that€he€considered€matters€outside€the€pleadings,€but€rather€it€particularly€limits€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðscope€of€his€consideration€to€the€ð ðDefendantsðð€Motion.ðð€€I€think€this€is€sufficient€to€indicate€that€allÐ $ t Ðother€matters€outside€the€pleadings€were€excluded€from€consideration.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€importance€of€this€issue€is€that€different€standards€of€review€apply€to€Rule€12€and€RuleÐ è 8  Ð56.€€The€parties€are€entitled€to€a€review€of€their€case€based€upon€the€type€of€order€entered€by€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt.€€A€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€may€beÐ À  Ðgranted€tests€only€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€not€the€strength€of€plaintiffððs€evidence.€€See€òòDoeÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€2€S.W.3d€919,€922€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€motion€admits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€andÐ ˜è  Ðmaterial€averments€in€the€complaint€but€asserts€that€such€facts€are€insufficient€to€state€a€claim€as€aÐ „Ô  Ðmatter€of€law.€€See€òòWinchester€v.€Littleóó,€996€S.W.2d€818,€821€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€On€the€otherÐ pÀ Ðhand,€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€goes€directly€to€the€merits€of€the€litigation.€€See€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ð \¬ Ð847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€This€decision€has€the€effect€of€transforming€the€role€of€thisÐ H˜ ÐCourt€from€a€court€of€review€to€a€court€of€original€jurisdiction.€€When€the€appellate€court€considersÐ 4„ Ðdocuments€never€mentioned€or€contemplated€by€the€trial€court,€and€renders€a€decision€it€apparentlyÐ  p Ðfeels€the€trial€court€òòshould€have€madeóó,€it€ceases€to€be€a€court€of€review.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€have€been€caught€in€the€crosshair€between€two€courts.€€The€trial€court€hasÐ ä4 Ðdismissed€their€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€cause€of€action,€and€this€Court€has€granted€summaryÐ Ð  Ðjudgment€for€the€defendants.€€I€would€treat€their€case€as€the€trial€court€did,€namely,€as€a€dismissal€forÐ ¼  Ðfailure€to€state€a€cause€of€action,€and€upon€review€apply€the€standard€applicable€to€such€cases.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÐ 0"€  ÐÔ#†X¡ X XX4t#ÔÔ#†õyÜõ XX¡¼#ÔÓÁÓ