WPC$ =# fUNq % 0 UNw@4DX 05g 0D 0D $    ~ 0JD 0T 0^ 0h@ 0r 0| 0 AQm B3 0@P 0D 0 D/d 1u B D3% 0dXU>B)DC# AMfU*|1Gv~xvHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular pDqDrasatVuӀӀ_#3|x((3k$ !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TX!|XXX      0  (#$  0  (3$ !  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  ! #$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("$    ($$   1  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ((' dxd% ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P Pd""""'dxdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd!#3C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#1  \RA'\   "  55   YYY FILED5XDecember5,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !  #d#1  \RA'\   "  55   YYY FILED5XDecember5,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#1  \RA'\   $       ӀTheClaimsCommissionalsonotedinitsorderthatBrownhadfailedtorespondtothedefendantsmotiontodismiss.  !#d#1  \RA'\   $       ӀMitchellslettertoBrownerroneouslystatesthatthestatuteoflimitationsforsuchanactionistwoyears. ' !#d#1  \RA'\   $       ӀThisdateiscalculatedastwoyearsfromthedateofaccrualofthecauseofactionofthemaliciousprosecutionclaim,whichaccruedonNovember24,1992(thedatethatthecriminalchargesagainstBrownweredismissed). Dunn, 697F.2dat127.  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . 1  \RA'\  7XXdXXd7  !R463A1-j|` 2 `@RJ47;+'b|` 2 `@Jߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATNASHVILLÈ򀀀JERRYRAYBROWN,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   ) DavidsonLawNo.96C1205      )vs.      )      ) AppealNo.01A019702CV00049 PHILLIPL.DAVIDSON,   )      ) Defendant/Appellee.   ) 0 @ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLETHOMASW.BROTHERS,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellant:   FortheDefendant/Appellee:JerryRayBrown,ProSe   JamesL.HarrisClarksville,Tennessee  Nashville,Tennessee         AFFIRMED       HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,J.ALANE.HIGHERS,J.Ӝ@ OPINION ̜ Thisisalegalmalpracticeaction.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheactionastimebarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Weaffirm. InDecember,1992,Plaintiff/AppellantJerryRayBrown( Brown)metwithDefendant/AppelleePhillipL.Davidson( Davidson),anattorneylicensedtopracticelawinTennessee.BrownhiredDavidsontopursueaclaimofmaliciousprosecutionagainsttheMontgomeryCountyDistrictAttorney.Brownallegesthatheintendedfortheclaimtobepursuedinfederalcourt.Brownmaintainsthathetendered$120.00toDavidsonforthefederalcourtfilingfee. Insteadoffilinginfederalcourt,however,DavidsonfiledtheclaimwiththeTennesseeClaimsCommission.BrowncontendsthatDavidsondidnottellhimthathefiledwiththeClaimsCommissioninsteadoffederalcourt.BrownfurtherclaimsthatDavidsonfailedtopursuetheactionintheClaimsCommissionandthatDavidsonmisappropriatedthe$120.00filingfee.Ultimately,onNovember16,1993,thesuitintheClaimsCommissionwasdismissed,basedongovernmentalimmunity. 8    Subsequently,Brownconsultedanotherattorney,KathleenMitchell,regardinghisclaimofmaliciousprosecutionagainsttheMontgomeryCountyDistrictAttorney.InaletterdatedFebruary15,1994,Mitchellstated:8 Afterextensiveresearchintothecase,IhavecometotheconclusionthatyouhaveavalidclaimfordamagesformaliciousprosecutionundertheFourthAmendmentand42USC1983,whichcouldbebroughtintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,MiddleDistrict,atNashville.Thereisatwoyearstatuteoflimitationsforthisaction.DespitereceivingthisletterfromMitchell,whichsuggeststhatDavidsonshouldhavefiledthemaliciousprosecutionactioninfederalcourt,BrownscomplaintagainstDavidsonforlegalmalpracticewasnotfileduntilApril1,1996.Subsequently,DavidsonfiledamotionfordismissalofBrownslawsuit,assertingthatBrownslegalmalpracticeclaimwastimebarredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitations,TennesseeCodeAnnotated283104(Supp.1997). Afterhearingargumentsfrombothparties,thetrialcourtissuedanorderinJuly1996,dismissingBrownssuitagainstDavidson.ThetrialcourtagreedthatBrownssuitwas timebarred.FromthisorderBrownnowappeals. AlthoughDavidsondesignatedhismotiontodismissa motionforfailuretostateaclaimunderRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,therecordbeforethetrialcourtincludedevidencebeyondthefaceofthecomplaint,suchasMitchellslettertoBrown.Consequently,themotionmustbetreatedasamotionforsummaryjudgment,pursuanttoRule56ϜoftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure. Hixonv.Stickley ,493S.W.2d471,473(Tenn.1973)( [O]namotionunder(Rule12.02(6))extraneousmattermaynotbeconsideredifthecourtexcludesit,butifthecourtdoesnotexcludesuchmaterialthemotionshallbetreatedasamotionforsummaryjudgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule56.).  Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.1993).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. at21011.Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Id. Therefore,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Id.  UnderTennesseeCodeAnnotated283104(a)(2),actionsforlegalmalpracticemustbebroughtwithinoneyear afterthecauseofactionaccrued.In CaledoniaLeasing&Equip.Co.v.Armstrong,Allen,Braden,Goodman,McBride&Prewitt, 865S.W.2d10(Tenn.App.1992)theCourtheldthatacauseofactionaccrueswhen:8 (1)theattorneyhascommittednegligence,(2)theclienthasbeeninjuredbythatϜnegligence,and(3)theclientdiscovers,orintheexerciseofreasonablecareandϜdiligence,shouldhavediscovered,theexistenceofthefactsconstitutingnegligencebytheattorneyandtheinjurycausedbytheattorneysnegligence. Id. at13(citationsomitted).̜Ǜ ConsideringBrownsfactualallegationsastrue,Davidsonwouldhave committednegligenceatsomepointinDecember1992orearly1993,whenheallegedlymisappropriatedhisclientsmoneyandfailedtofilethesuitinfederalcourt. Id. Withregardtothesecondprongof Caledonia ,Brownwouldhavebeen injuredbythatnegligenceatthepointwhenthefundsweremisappropriatedorwhenthestatuteoflimitationsexpiredforfilingsuitinfederalcourt. Id. Brownsactioninfederalcourtwouldhavebeenbasedon42U.S.C.A.1983(Supp.1997).Thestatuteoflimitationsforanactionbroughtunderafederalcivilrightsstatuteandanactionformaliciousprosecutionisoneyear. 9   ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.283104(a)(1)and(3); Dunnv.Tennessee, 697F.2d121,126(6thCir.1982).Thisactionwouldaccrueuponterminationofthepriorcriminalproceeding. Dunn, 697F.2dat127.Inthepresentcase,thatdatewasNovember24,1992,whenthetrialcourtdismissedallthecriminalchargesbroughtagainstBrownbythedistrictattorney.Therefore,Brownwouldhavebeen injuredbythatnegligenceonNovember24,1993,whenhisrighttofilesuitinfederalcourtlapsed. Caledonia ,865S.W.2dat13. Withregardtothethirdprongof Caledonia ,DavidsonarguesthatBrowneitherdiscoveredorshouldhavediscoveredhiscauseofactionatthelatestuponreceiptofMitchellsletterinFebruary,1994. Caledonia, 865S.W.2dat13.Mitchellsletter(erroneously)statesϜthatatwoyearstatuteoflimitationswasapplicabletoBrownsfederalclaims.Therefore,itisarguablethatBrown, intheexerciseofreasonablediligence,should(not)havediscoveredhiscauseofactionuntiltheexpirationofthisperceivedlimitationsperiodonNovember24,1994. :   ׀ Id.  Underallthreeoftheprongsof Caledonia ,thelatestconceivabledateofaccrualofBrownsmalpracticeclaimagainstDavidsonisNovember24,1994.BrownfiledthisactiononApril1,1996.Thisdateisclearlybeyondtheoneyearlimitationperiodsetforthinthestatute.Tenn.CodeAnn.283104. Brownarguesthatthelimitationsperiodshouldbetolledbecausehesufferednumerousserioushealthproblemsduringthelitigation.Thedoctrineofequitabletollingwasrecentlyconsideredin Nortonv.Everhart, 895S.W.2d317,321(Tenn.1995).Thedoctrinewasdescribedasameansofsuspendingthestatuteoflimitationstopreventstrictconstructionofthestatutefromcausing harshresults.𛀀 Id. TheCourtdeclinedtorecognizethedoctrineofequitabletolling.ItfoundsufficientTennesseesexistingdoctrineofequitableestoppel,whichrequires thattheplaintiffsfailuretobringtheactionwithinthestatutoryperiodoflimitationsbeattributabletodeceptionormisconductonthepartofthedefendant. Id. Thereisnoevidenceofsuchdeceptionormisconductinthiscase,andconsequently,nobasisonwhichtotollthestatuteoflimitations.Therefore,thetrialcourtproperlygrantedDavidsonsmotiontodismiss. Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.          HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.  CONCUR:򀀀W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.򀀀ALANE.HIGHERS,J.