WPC }9 }G(Baq4#|ά*á0 #&{6;EzH3>N4m؛dcg5lKP6|iXTT$3/gM@ɩ"?{7ёڃ` B$o\sޚf UĨzd[sRii N މ$? ?u"["\2Av+%8 QpaBUSgt@&[+ "銕5aTe2?pZO'ԌKʠsޓmPNPi|82۰$\u8Bq) %  DavidDay,_Cookeville_,Tennessee,fortheappellants,R.DavidAshleyandE.DianaAshley "! %%  %DonaldK._Vowell_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,ThomasA._Snapp_ $# Robin_Gratigny_,ProSe &!% @55' OPINION #XXB #%  XBXԈ n(#'    ` TheAppellants,R.DavidAshleyandE.DianaAshley,appealtheKnoxCounty N*%) CircuitCourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofThomasA._Snapp_ԀandRobin_Gratigny_,the >+&* Appellees. .,~'+   -n(, `    ` The_Ashleys_Ԁpresentthefollowingissues,whichwerestate,onappeal: @     `  1.WhethertheTrialCourtimproperlygrantedMr._Snapp_Ԁand      `  Mr._Gratigny_'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentregardingthe     `  _Ashleys_'maliciousprosecutionclaimwhengenuineissuesof     `  materialfactexistwithrespecttotheelementsofmalicious     `  prosecution.     `  2.WhethertheTrialCourtimproperlygrantedtheMr._Snapp_ `     `  andMr._Gratigny_'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentonthe_Ashleys_' P     `  abuseofprocessclaimssincetherearegenuineissuesoffact @     `  regardingthe"improperpurpose"oftheirmaliciousprosecution 0     `  claim.      `     h    ` WevacatethegrantofsummaryjudgmentbytheTrialCourtontheissueof P maliciousprosecutionandremandonthatissue,andweaffirmthegrantofsummaryjudgmentby @ theTrialCourtontheissueofabuseofprocess. 0    `     ` Thislawsuitisthethirdinaseriesofsuitsinvolvingthe_Ashleys_ԀandMr._Snapp_.The  _Ashleys_ԀweretheownersofacloselyheldcorporationnamedEnergyShearsofAmerica,Inc.,  whichhadfiledforbankruptcyprotection.The_Ashleys_ԀcontendthattheKnoxvillelawfirmof  _Ayres_Ԁ&_Parkey_Ԁrepresentedthempersonallyandrepresentedthecorporationinthebankruptcy  p proceeding.However,_Ayres_Ԁ&_Parkey_Ԁmaintainedthatitrepresentedthecorporationonlyinthe !` bankruptcyproceeding.Mr._Snapp_Ԁwasanassociatewith_Ayres_Ԁ&_Parkey_Ԁandparticipatedinthe "P bankruptcyproceeding. #@    `     h    ` Intheearly1990s,the_Ashleys_Ԁfiledalegalmalpracticesuitagainstthelawfirmof `'  _Ayres_Ԁ&_Parkey_ԀandMr._Snapp_.Althoughthe_Ashleys_Ԁtookavoluntary_nonsuit_Ԁinthelegal P(! malpracticesuit,theylater_refiled_Ԁtheirmalpracticesuitandthereafteragreedtodismisswith @)" prejudiceMr._Snapp_Ԁfromthesuit. 0* #    `     h      `     h      ,"% Ї   ` Mr._Snapp_,whowasrepresentedbyattorneyandcoassociateat_Ayres_Ԁ&_Parkey_ `  Robin_Gratigny_,thenfiledasuitagainstthe_Ashleys_Ԁandtheirattorney,DavidDay,formalicious P  prosecutionintheirfilingoftheinitiallawsuitforlegalmalpractice.Mr._Snapp_'slawsuitagainst @  the_Ashleys_Ԁwasdefeatedonamotionforsummaryjudgment,andMr._Snapp_Ԁdidnotappealthat 0  decision.   @*   `     h        ` Theinstantcaseisamaliciousprosecutionandanabuseofprocesssuitfiledbythe  _Ashleys_ԀagainstMr._Snapp_ԀandhiscounselMr._Gratigny_Ԁforthesuitfiledagainstthemformalicious  prosecution.Mr._Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_Ԁfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment,andtheTrialCourt p  grantedthemotions.The_Ashleys_Ԁnowappealthegrantsofsummaryjudgment. `     `     h     @*   ` Intheirfirstissue,the_Ashleys_ԀarguethattheTrialCourtimproperlygrantedMr.   _Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_'smotionforsummaryjudgmentontheissueofmaliciousprosecution.The p _Ashleys_ԀcontendthattheAppelleesfailedintheirpriorlawsuittoprovetheelementsofmalicious ` prosecution:probablecause,malice,andtheprioractionwasterminatedinfavoroftheplaintiff. P The_Ashleys_Ԁmaintain"thatthejurynotthejudgeshouldmakethefactualdeterminationof @ whetheradefendantactedwithoutprobablecause,"citingRobertsv.FederalExpressCorporation, 0 842S.W.2d246,24849(Tenn.1992).Thus,the_Ashleys_Ԁassertthat"summaryjudgmentdecisions   inmaliciousprosecutionclaimsmustbedeniedifthereareanygenuineissuesoffactincluding  inferencestobedrawnfromthosefactstopresenttothejury."     `     h      ` Amongthe_Ashleys_'argumentsregardingalackofprobablecauseisthatMr._Snapp_Ԁ  p "sufferednodamagesasaresultofthe[_Ashleys_']legalmalpracticeclaimagainsthim."The !` _Ashleys_ԀnotethatduringMr._Snapp_'sdepositionhestatedthatthedamageshehadsufferedwould "P be"speculative,"whichthe_Ashleys_Ԁmaintainpresentsagenuineissueofmaterialfactregardinga #@ lackofprobablecause. $0    ` Second,the_Ashleys_ԀassertthatMr._Snapp_ԀandhisattorneyMr._Gratigny_Ԁfiledtheir `'  priorsuitformaliciousprosecutionwithmalice.The_Ashleys_Ԁcontend"thattheelementofmalice P(! maybeinferredfromanabsenceofprobablecause."Moreover,theyassertthatthefactsshowthat @)" Mr._Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_Ԁactedwithmalice.OneexampletheyciteisMr._Snapp_'sangerthat 0* # amalpracticesuithadbeenfiledagainsthim.AnotheristhatthetimingofthefilingofMr._Snapp_'s  +!$ maliciousprosecutionsuitagainstthe_Ashleys_Ԁandtheirattorney.The_Ashleys_ԀcontendthatMr. ,"% _Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_Ԁwaitedto"withineightminutesoftherunningofthestatuteoflimitations `  onthemaliciousprosecutionclaimtofilethis'slap'suitagainstthe_Ashleys_."The_Ashleys_Ԁcontend P  thatthesefacts,alongwithMr._Snapp_'slackofactualdamagesfromalossofbusinessincome @  becauseoftheoriginalmalpracticeaction,indicatethatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactexist 0  regardingtheelementofmalice.      ` Finally,the_Ashleys_Ԁarguethatthethirdelementofmaliciousprosecution,whichis  aprioractionwasterminatedintheirfavor,ismetbythecourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentintheir  favorinthepriorlawsuit.Moreover,Mr._Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_Ԁacknowledgethatthiselement p  issatisfiedbythecourt'srulinginthe_Ashleys_'favorinthepriorlitigation. `     `    ` Mr._Snapp_Ԁarguesthatthe_Ashleys_Ԁfailedtoprovideanyexpertproofagainsthisand   Mr._Gratigny_'smotionsforsummaryjudgmentintheirpriorsuitagainstthe_Ashleys_.Furthermore, p Mr._Snapp_Ԁassertsthatthe_Ashleys_Ԁfailedtofileanythingtodisputetheirlackofdamagesinthe ` malpracticelawsuit.Thus,Mr._Snapp_Ԁmaintainsthat"basedontherecordbeforethetrialcourt,it P hadtobetakenashavingbeenconclusivelyestablishedthatthe_Ashleys_Ԁhadnobasisinlaworfact @ tosue"him,andtherefore,hehadprobablecausetobringhismaliciousprosecutionsuitagainstthe 0 _Ashleys_ԀandtheirattorneyMr.Day.   @*   ` Mr._Gratigny_Ԁarguesthatwhilethe_Ashleys_Ԁhavemetthefirstelement,apriorsuithad  beendeterminedinfavoroftheplaintiff,the_Ashleys_Ԁhavefailedtocarrytheheavyburdenof  p establishingtheexistenceofmaliceandofprobablecause.Mr._Gratigny_,whorepresentedMr. !` _Snapp_Ԁinhissuitagainstthe_Ashleys_Ԁformaliciousprosecution,maintains"thattheChanceryCourt "P lawsuitfiledonMr._Snapp_'sbehalfhadtwomaingoals,repairingMr._Snapp_'sdamagedreputation #@ andseekingcompensationfordamagessuffered."Mr._Gratigny_Ԁfurtherarguesthatthe_Ashleys_ $0 failedtoestablishtheelementofprobablecausebecausethe_Ashleys_Ԁhadnogroundsforfilinga %  legalmalpracticeactionagainstMr._Snapp_. p&    `     h      ` Thestandardofreviewofacourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentisprovidedinRule 0* # 56.04oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,whichstatesthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriate  +!$ when"thepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwith ,"% theaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemoving `  partyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw." P     `     h      p    `     h      ` "[_T]he_Ԁtrialcourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorof  thenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardall  countervailingevidence."Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993).ThisCourt'sreview  ofagrantofsummaryjudgmentrequiresustomakeafreshdeterminationregardingwhether  summaryjudgmentisappropriate.Gonzalesv._Alman_ԀConstructionCompany,857S.W.2d42,44 p  45(Tenn.Ct.App.1993). `     `    @*   ` Threeelementsarerequiredtoestablishaclaimformaliciousprosecution:(1)aprior   suitorjudicialproceedingwasbroughtwithoutprobablecause,(2)suchprioractionwasbrought p withmalice,and(3)theprioractionwasterminatedintheplaintiff'sfavor.Roberts,842S.W.2dat ` 24748. P    `     h        ` Theexistenceofprobablecauseisdeterminedfromanobjectiveexaminationofthe   surroundingfactsandcircumstances,notfromasubjectiveassessmentofthedefendant'smental  state.Roberts,842S.W.2dat248.ThisCourthasheldthat"[a]showingofalackofprobable  causewillgiverisetoa_rebuttable_Ԁpresumptionofmalice."Sullivanv.Young,678S.W.2d906,911  (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).     ` Maliciousprosecutionclaimsagainstattorneysresponsibleforfilingtheunderlying "P lawsuitarerecognizedinTennessee._Peerman_Ԁv._Sidicane_,605S.W.2d242(Tenn.Ct.App.1980). #@    `     h        `    ` Aswehavestated,thisCourtmustmakeafreshdeterminationofwhetheraTrial `'  Courtproperlygrantedthemotionsforsummaryjudgment,andtheevidenceistobeviewedinthe P(! lightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,the_Ashleys_Ԁinthiscase.Mr._Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_ @)" bothadmitthatthe_Ashleys_Ԁsatisfyoneelementnecessarytoprovemaliciousprosecution:theprior 0* # action(Mr._Snapp_'smaliciousprosecutionsuitagainstthe_Ashleys_)wasterminatedinthe_Ashleys_'  +!$ favor.Mr._Snapp_Ԁcontendsthathedidnotfilehissuitformaliciousprosecutionoutofmalice,but ,"% hadprobablecausebecauseofdamagetohisreputationasanattorney.However,Mr._Snapp_ `  acknowledgedthatanydamagefromalossofbusinessincomewouldbe"speculative."Inaddition, P  the_Ashleys_Ԁpointtothetimingofthefilingofthesuitformaliciousprosecution,aswellasMr. @  _Snapp_'sangeraboutthe_Ashleys_'malpracticesuitagainsthimandhisrepresentationbyaco 0  associateat_Ayres_Ԁ&_Parkey_,Mr._Gratigny_.Accordingly,weareoftheopinionthatgenuineissues   ofmaterialfactexistregardingtheelementsofthemaliciousprosecutionclaim.     `     h      p    `     h    ` Intheirsecondissue,the_Ashleys_ԀarguethattheTrialCourterredingranting p  summaryjudgmenttoMr._Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_Ԁontheissueofabuseofprocess.The_Ashleys_ `  insistthatMr._Snapp_'ssuitformaliciousprosecutionwasfiledforanimproperpurposeasdetailed P  earlierinthisopinion.   @     `     h      ` However,Mr._Snapp_Ԁarguesthat"the_Ashleys_Ԁhavefailedtopleadaclaimforwhich ` reliefcanbegranted."Henotesthatthetortofabuseofprocessrequirestwoelements:anulterior P motiveandanimproperactintheuseoftheprocess,citingBellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_Ԁ,986S.W.2d @ 550(Tenn.1999).The_Ashleys_'complaintstatesonlythat"oninformationandbeliefthat 0 Defendants'lawsuit,includingtherelatedprocess,wasanabuseofprocessandintendedto   accomplishsomepurposeotherthanjusticetoDefendants."  @*   ` Mr._Gratigny_Ԁcontends"thattherewasnoimproperpurposeassociatedwiththefiling  p oftheChanceryCourtlawsuit.Thislawsuitwasfiledsolelyforthepurpose[of]seeking !` compensationfortheharmoccasionedonMr.Sharp'sprofessionalreputationbyhisinclusioninthe "P originalmalpracticesuit."Therefore,Mr._Gratigny_Ԁassertsthatthemaliciousprosecutionsuitagainst #@ the_Ashleys_ԀbyMr._Snapp_Ԁwasnot"commencedforawrongfulpurpose." $0    `     h     ̀   ` ForanabuseofprocessclaiminTennessee,twoelementsmustbealleged:"(1)the P(! existenceofanulteriormotive,and(2)anactintheuseofprocessotherthansuchaswouldbe @)" properintheregularprosecutionofthecharge."Priestv.UnionAgency,174Tenn.304,306,125 0* # S.W.2d142,143(1939).Abuseofprocesslies"fortheimproperuseofprocessafterithasbeen  +!$ issued,notformaliciouslycausingprocesstoissue."Priest,174Tenn.at306;125S.W.2dat143. ,"%    `     h        ` Mr._Snapp_'sargumentregardingthe_Ashleys_'failuretopleadoneoftheelementsof @  abuseofprocessiswelltaken.Therefore,weaffirmthegrantofsummaryjudgmentontheissue 0  ofabuseofprocess.      ` Basedontheforegoing,wevacatethegrantofsummaryjudgmentbytheTrialCourt  ontheissueofmaliciousprosecutionandremandonthatissue.Weaffirmthegrantofsummary  judgmentontheissueofabuseofprocess.Onehalfthecostsoftheappealareadjudgedagainst p  Mr._Snapp_ԀandMr._Gratigny_,andonehalfthecostsoftheappealareadjudgedagainstthe_Ashleys_ `  andtheirsurety. P     `     h   __________________________________________ 0     `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE