ÿWPCC  Ðf‰vÈ•ªd¾¹LQpvCU®MÇAí­‚ZPŸ[¼Ÿ˜ó¶ëÀo&÷I)|j¨…ñ’Ü'L+—ó£³Äh«€ý#ê¿YuÍSãÍTÞ·‚m\´e$8 K§rÉ,µ ‰° ²ó£ œN2û©usa£†¨'v-ÝÐõê­ù± ¬…èä¨>æS/y’ƒ;ó1puݬ?Í·¥€ti TÞ1‹5Ö@è->€•ÕjK¬rfÆkýΤ ÙÀÙUiú·íjÜßbˆV"íô?{¦âðmÝȶÃc¥h`Lúi}vTnt©L–VU$¨ª•)sFÖ<Û7FMc+Ô:\[Ðò*s²ªb>–‡æµgÑÎg!6¿V`¦®PëWÇMÓ­Jƒ`¢uX[ˆrFíg¸™ªÂ¶ý´–³Î×yéîô¯Kà×p_Hø9cÁæ8Dì}’‹+ƒíÑcJ!Ãã³Ä‹ õšŒ!c9sëªÂP:Ê’ '¼¾[Ãøµ-øÞZ~þë]ÌŸÉ“P® &е^"ø¿°qÒƒuê'ƒ†mQÎÉ!Ìd6†äºg$Ûjÿñ¿7’”Èqæò[Òd‚i ø Íî5Üèr‹ˆëˆšoñQ*# LU>W %• 0(›4Ã× 1mæSU N[:© 0lã 0DO 0c“LöBbB w@J U:Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š BÄ AQá Æ2 0Dø 0D< 0D€ € D/Ä Ä Bó D3 ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡ê‚_# x°°3|x #-e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular 0Ñ#€ m Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;3»$´´Ô2-eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT öÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XUi XXXÔÔ€ÊN  XXUiÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XUi X ÊNÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó- ù-   D   DÓ€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ*°,X‚Xìp’X°œX*ÓÑ7€›ÖXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ X oXXXÔÔ€ ¼'`¼X X oÔÑ€ .–Ñœññññññññœññßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßññññññJACK›€WAYNE€BURSACK,à ¼ à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)ÌÓ9°,X‚XìDÈ‘X°,X‚Xìp’X9Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à ¼ à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)à  à01„A„01„9710„CV„00555Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà ¼ à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)à  àDavidson€CircuitÐ  P ÐLAWRENCE€D.€WILSON,à ¼ à)à  àNo.€96C„3128Ð  ` Ðññœßt€ )>.*jx"þy` `€€@E™ ` 8ttxPN ð y tß›ññà Ø àà ¼ à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à ¼ à)Ð 0 € Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€ »§c»¼ ¼'`ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ  ð ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€H.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X°,X‚XìDÈ‘X9ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€ ¼'`¼» »§cÔLIONEL€R.€BARRETT,€JR.Ð p"À ÐWashington€Square€Two€„€Suite€418Ì222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌG.€KLINE€PRESTON,€IVÌWashington€Square€Two€„€Suite€416Ì222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201„1652Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óœñ ñAFFIRMEDñ ññ ñMODIFIED›€ñ ññ ñ€ñ ñAND›€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌññÑ .–ÑÑ7€  o XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ .–ÑÑ#€ m Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑññÌññÑ .–ÑÑ7€  o XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññÔ€ »§c»¼ ¼'`ÔÓ  ÓWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:063 ÐÑ .–ÑÑ7€  o XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññÑ .–ÑÑ7€ ]3 XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ‡ °ê_°» »§cÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#† »§c»° °ê_« #ÔÔ€ ¼'`¼» »§cÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9Óà  àIn€this€case€plaintiff€Jack€Wayne€Bursack€sues€defendant€Lawrence€D.Ð T¤ ÐWilson€for€alleged€professional€negligence€in€legal€representation€of€the€plaintiffÏin€prior€litigation€before€the€Circuit€Court€of€Maury€County,€Tennessee.ÌÌà  àIn€the€Maury€County€litigation€Rally€Hill€Productions,€Inc.€filed€suit€onÏJanuary€30,€1992,€against€Jack€Wayne€Bursack€and€others€alleging€falseÏrepresentations€and€the€submission€of€false€financial€statements€by€Bursack€andÏothers€upon€which€Rally€Hill€reasonably€relied.€€Defendant€Lawrence€D.€WilsonÏanswered€and€cross„claimed€on€behalf€of€Bursack.ÌÌà  àWhen€the€Maury€County€case€came€on€for€trial€on€February€3,€1993,ÏBursack€did€not€appear.€€From€the€record€this€strategy€seems€to€have€been€basedÏupon€the€result€obtained€in€ò òòòœSpilman€v.€Harveyó óóó,€656€F.2d€224€(6th€Cir.€1981),€inÐ tÄ Ðwhich€a€petitioner€was€allowed€to€relitigateññ,ññ€in€federal€courtññ,ññ€issues€which€hadÏbeen€previously€determined€in€state€court€via€default€judgment.€€In€the€case€at€bar,Ïdefault€judgment€was€entered€against€Mr.€Bursack€and€his€co„defendant€basedÏupon€a€jury€verdict€finding€fraud.€€Judgment€was€in€the€amount€of€$570,098.25Ïinclusive€of€$100,000.00€in€punitive€damages€assessed€by€the€jury.ÌÌà  àOn€May€28,€1993,€Bursack€filed€a€petition€for€relief€under€Chapter€7€ofÏthe€Federal€Bankruptcy€Code;€and€on€August€30,€1993,€Rally€Hill€instituted€itsÏaction€in€the€bankruptcy€court€to€determine€the€dischargeability€of€theÏ$570,098.25€judgment.€€The€bankruptcy€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favorÏof€Rally€Hill,›€holding€that€the€Maury€County€judgment€was€not€dischargeable€inÏbankruptcy.€€Bursack€appealed€first€to€the€United€States€District€Court€of€theÏMiddle€District€of€œTennessee,€ò òòòIn€Re€Bursackó óóó,€163€Bank.€302,Ð /0+4 Ð(Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1994),›€and€then€to€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€œAppeals,›€œò òòòIn€ReÐ Ê1-6 ÐBursackó óóó,€65€F.2d€51€(6th€Cir.1995),€with›€both€of€these€courts€holding€that€theÐ e3µ.8 ÐMaury€County€judgment€on€the€issue€of€fraud€had€preclusive€effect€in€the€FederalÏBankruptcy€Court€and€the€Maury€County€judgment€was€thus€nondischargeable.ÌÌà  àThe€decision€of€the€United€States€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€wasÐ È95@ Ðissued€August€25,€1995,€and€the€complaint€in€the€case€at€bar€in€the€Circuit€CourtÏof€Davidson€County€was€filed€on€Monday,€August€26,€1996.ÌÌà  àDefendant's€motion€to€dismiss€based€upon€the€expiration€of€the€statuteÏof€limitations€was€denied€on€November€19,€1996.ÌÌà  àAfter€further€œproceedings,›€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,ÏTennessee€on€May€28,€œ1997,›€granted€summary€judgment€for€defendant€LawrenceÏD.€Wilson€and€plaintiff€appealed.ÌÌœà  àThe›€case€is€before€us€on€review€of€an€order€granting€summary€judgment.€ÏAs€such,€it€must€be€determined€according€to€the€familiar€principles€set€forth€inÏò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.1993);€and€ò òòòEvco€Corp.€v.€Rossó óóó,€528€œS.W.2d›Ð Ð  Ð20€(Tenn.1975).€€We€must€view€the€evidence€taking€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÏin€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allowing€all€reasonable€inferences€from€theÏevidence€in€his€favor,€and€discarding€all€countervailing€evidence.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,Ð ›ë Ð847€œS.W.2d›€208€(Tenn.1993).€€By€viewing€the€evidence€in€this€way,€we€mustÏdetermine€that€no€dispute€exists€as€to€any€material€fact.€€ÌÓ€Óà8  àWhere€there€does€exist€a€dispute€as€to€facts€which€are€deemedÏmaterial€by€the€trial€court,€however,€or€where€there€isÏuncertainty€as€to€whether€there€may€be€such€a€dispute,€theÏduty€of€the€trial€court€is€clear.€€he€is€to€overrule€any€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€in€such€cases,€because€summary€judgmentÏproceedings€are€not€in€any€sense€to€be€viewed€as€a€substituteÏfor€a€trial€of€disputed€factual€issues.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌò òòòEvco€Corp.€v.€Rossó óóó,€528€œS.W.2d›€20,€24€(Tenn.1975).Ð æ)6%, ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€court€of€appeals€on€appeal€from€summary€judgment€by€the€trialÏcourt€is€bound€by€the€same€rules.€€ò òòòGray€v.€Amosó óóó,€869€œS.W.2d›€925€(Tenn.€App.Ð 8/ˆ*2 Ð1993).ÌÌà  àThe€only€issue€presented€for€review€by€the€appellant€asserts:ÌÓ€Óà8  àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€defendant'sÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€since€there€was€a€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact€as€to€the€advice€given€to€the€plaintiff€JackÏBursack€to€allow€a€summary€judgment€(default?)€to€be€enteredÏagainst€him€in€the€underlying€civil€action€in€Maury€County,Ð Û9+5> ÐTennessee.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àThe€resolution€of€this€issue€depends€upon€whether€or€not€expertÏtestimony€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€was€required.ÌÌà  àIn€the€trial€court€the€defendant,€being€an€attorney,€offered€his€ownÏaffidavit€as€an€expert€that€his€conduct€in€the€Maury€County€litigation€compliedÏwith€the€applicable€standard€of€care.€€The€plaintiff€in€response€filed€no€affidavitÏfrom€an€expert.ÌÌà  àIt€is€settled€that:€€"In€Tennessee,€expert€testimony€is€required€to€establishÏnegligence€and€proximate€cause€in€malpractice€actions€unless€the€allegedÏmalpractice€is€within€the€common€knowledge€of€laymen."€€ò òòòAyers€v.€RutherfordÐ Ð  ÐHospital,€Inc.ó óóó,€689€œS.W.2d›€155,€160€(Tenn.€App.€1984).Ð k» ÐÌà  àWhile€the€ò òòòAyersó óóó€case€dealt€with€medical€malpractice,€the€sameÐ žî Ðrequirements€as€to€expert€testimony€are€applicable€in€legal€malpractice€actions.€Ð 9‰ Ðò òòòCleckner€v.€Daleó óóó,€719€œS.W.2d›€535€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ð Ñ!! ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€in€this€case€thus€cannot€prevail€without€expert€testimonyÏunless€".€.€.€the€alleged€malpractice€is€within€the€common€knowledge€of€laymen."ÌÌà  àThe€complaint€alleges€in€part:ÌÓB° ,X°4Œ ìÈ‘X°,X°4ì“XBÓÓ€Óà8  à11.à \ àThe€plaintiff€Bursack€avers€that€the€defendant€WilsonÐ d)´$- Ðadvised€him€not€to€appear€to€defend€at€the€Maury€County,ÏTennessee€state€court€action€since€it€was€deemed€that€hisÏappearance€would€be€useless€and€that€it€was€a€foregoneÏconclusion€that€he€was€going€to€lose€that€litigation.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à12.à \ àPlaintiff€further€avers€that€the€defendant€attorneyÐ ´.*2 ÐWilson€felt€that€in€his€view€that€there€existed€a€closeÏfriendship€between€the€attorney€for€Rally€Hill€and€the€judgeÏtrying€the€case€would€make€it€virtually€impossible€for€BursackÏto€receive€a€fair€hearing€in€Maury€County,€Tennessee.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à13.à \ àThe€plaintiff€Bursack€relied€upon€this€decision€of€hisÐ 4T/7 Ðcounsel,€although€Bursack€was€willing€and€able€and€wished€toÏappear€to€litigate€the€issues,€particularly€of€fraud€and€the€falseÏfinancial€statements.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à14.à \ àThe€plaintiff€Bursack€further€avers€that€had€he€appearedÐ D8”3; Ðand€litigated€this€matter€that€the€probabilities€were€high€thatÐ T9¤4< Ða€judgment€would€have€been€returned€in€his€favor€and€heÏwould€not€be€looking€at€the€$570,098.25€judgment,€along€withÏinterest,€that€has€now€been€placed€against€him.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à15.à \ àThe€plaintiff€Jack€Bursack€further€avers€that€theÐ à0 Ðdefendant€Wilson€failed€to€properly€consider€the€issue€ofÏcollateral€estoppel€on€the€fault€issue€and€how€it€would€impactÏupon€the€Plaintiff€Bursack.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à16.à \ àThe€plaintiff€relies€upon€the€decision€of€the€UnitedÐ  p ÐStates€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit,€which€has€beenÏattached€as€an€exhibit€hereto,€to€show€that€the€defendantÏWilson€should€have€foreseen€that€the€issue€of€collateralÏestoppel€would€have€barred€re„litigation€in€federal€court€onÏthis€issue€that€had€been€raised€and€litigated€in€State€court.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à17.à \ àThe€plaintiff€Bursack€further€avers€that€by€allowing€thisÐ €Ð  Ðdefault€judgment€to€be€taken€that€it€was€conclusive€by€way€ofÏestoppel€to€all€issues,€including€the€fraud,€and€foredoomed€hisÏcase€from€that€point€on,€even€though€federal€appeals€wereÏtaken€and€litigated.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àIn€his€affidavit€of€April€21,€1997,€in€opposition€to€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€previously€filed€by€the€defendant,€Mr.€Bursack€states€in€part:ÌÓ€Óà8  àI€do€not€know€whether€I€could€have€prevailed€had€I€gone€toÏtrial€in€Maury€County,€but€I€certainly€feel€that€I€received€badÏadvice€when€I€voluntarily€allowed€a€fraud€judgment€to€goÏdown€against€me.€€I€have€been€involved€in€law€enforcementÏand€have€always€been€an€honest€citizen,€and€I€never€wouldÏhave€voluntarily€walked€away€from€a€court€proceedings€if€IÏhad€known€that€I€was€going€to€be€found€guilty€of€fraud.€€MyÏpersonal€integrity€and€honesty€are€very€important€to€me€and,Ïwhile€I€feel€that€malpractice€was€also€committed€by€Mr.ÏWilson€in€telling€me€that€I€could€simply€re„litigate€this€in€theÏappellate€and€bankruptcy€courts,€that€slightly€more€importantÏto€me€is€the€issue€of€a€fraud€judgment€being€obtained€againstÏme.€€There€is€no€question€but€that€the€bankruptcy€court€andÏthe€appellate€court€rejected€Mr.€Wilson's€interpretation€of€theÏlaw,€both€upon€this€point€and€the€allowing€of€a€fraudÏjudgment€to€be€entered€against€me€I€feel€that€I€should€prevailÏin€this€particular€law€suit.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€only€question€before€this€court€in€this€aspect€of€the€case€is€whetherÏor€not€expert€testimony€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€was€required€as€a€matter€of€law.€ÏClearly€it€was€and€in€the€absence€of€such€expert€testimony€the€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€summary€œjudgment.€€Even€if€we€view€this€affidavit€as€a€claim€that€Mr.ÏWilson€did€not€properly€inform€appellant€of€the€effect€of€a€default€judgment,€Mr.ÏBursack€must€produce€expert€testimony€to€overcome€a€motion€for€summaryÐ Ð9 56 Ðjudgment.€›ÌÌà  àThe€complaint€of€the€plaintiff€questions€tactical€decisions€made€in€theÏMaury€County€litigation€to€allow€default€judgment€to€be€entered€against€BursackÏin€a€complaint€alleging€fraudulent€practices€by€Bursack.€€Plaintiff€relies€on€theÏopinion€of€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€œin€ò òòòIn›€re:€€Bursackó óóó,€65€F.œ3d›€51.€€ThisÐ ¨ ø  Ðis€the€reported€decision€of€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€in€affirming€theÏpreclusive€effect€in€collateral€estoppel€of€the€Maury€County€judgment€againstÏBursack.ÌÌà  àò òòòIn€re:€€Bursackó óóó,€far€from€supporting€the€plaintiff€on€the€question€of€theÐ £ó Ðnecessity€of€expert€testimony€in€this€cause,€clearly€dooms€the€plaintiff€on€thisÏissue.ÌÌà  àSaid€the€court€in€ò òòòBursackó óóó:Ð V ÐÓ€Óà0  àà € àà8  T$ T$àà \ àOur€inquiry€is€somewhat€complicated€by€the€discussionÏin€òòœSpilman›€v.€Harley,€supraóó,€of€collateral€estoppel€in€theÐ ± Ðcontext€of€a€bankruptcy€proceeding.€€There,€a€panel€of€thisÏcourt€held€that€"[c]ollateral€estoppel€requires€that€the€preciseÏissue€raised€in€the€later€proceedings€have€been€raised€in€theÏprior€proceeding,€that€the€issue€was€actually€litigated,€and€theÏdetermination€was€necessary€to€the€outcome."€€òòSpilmanóó,€656Ð #Q$ ÐF.2d€at€228.€€The€opinion€went€on€to€say€that€"[i]f€theÏimportant€issues€were€not€actually€litigated€in€the€priorÏproceeding,€òòas€is€the€case€with€a€default€judgmentóó,€thenÐ 1&!' Ðcollateral€estoppel€does€not€bar€relitigation€in€the€bankruptcyÏcourt."€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€òòSpilmanóó,€at€leastÐ Q(¡#) Ðarguably,€created€a€bright„line€rule€that€default€judgments€canÏnever€have€preclusive€effect€in€bankruptcy€proceedingsÏregardless€of€their€treatment€under€relevant€state€law.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àà \ àòòSpilmanóó€did€not,€however,€explain€why€an€exception€toÐ ¡-ñ(. Ððð€1738€should€apply€in€this€context.€€Thus,€its€continuingÏrelevance€is€questionable€in€light€of€the€later€Supreme€CourtÏcases€dealing€with€full€faith€and€credit.€€Indeed,€there€exists€aÏsplit€in€the€bankruptcy€courts€of€this€circuit€on€the€issue€ofÏwhether€these€cases€have€abrogated€òòSpilman's€óórule€about€theÐ ñ2A.3 Ðeffect€of€default€judgments.€€òòCompare,€e.g.,€Harris€v.€ByardÐ 4Q/4 Ð(In€re€Byard),óó€47€B.R.€700,€704„05€(Bankr.€M.D.€Tenn.€1985)Ð 5a05 Ð(òòSpilmanóó€rule€no€longer€controls)€òòwith€Ferguson€v.€Hall€(In€reÐ !6q16 ÐHall)óó,€95€B.R.€553,€558€(Bankr.€E.D.€Tenn.€1989)€(òòSpilmanÐ 1727 Ðóórule€still€applies);€òòsee€also€Bay€Area€Factors€v.€Calvert€(In€reÐ A8‘38 ÐCalvert)óó,€177€B.R.€583,€585„86€(Bankr.€W.D.€Tenn.€1995)Ð Q9¡49 Ð(collecting€cases€on€both€sides€of€the€issue).Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌò òòòIn€re:€€Bursackó óóó,€65€F.3d€51,€54€(6th€Cir.,€1995).Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÓ€Ӝ̛à  àNo€amount€of€lay€testimony€can€suffice€in€this€malpractice€caseÏcriticizing€the€tactical€decision€to€allow€a€default€judgment€to€be€entered€in€MauryÏCounty€in€the€hope€thereby€of€being€able€to€re„litigate€the€collateral€estoppel€issueÏin€a€bankruptcy€proceeding.€€œIn€light€of€the€above€authorities,€the€task€of€judging›Ïòòò òSpilman,ó óóó€and€indeed€judging€the€split€of€authority€within€the€Sixth€Circuit€as€toÐ úJ  Ðthe€preclusive€effect€of€default€judgment€in€a€state€court€on€collateral€estoppelÏissues,€lies€not€within€the€realm€of€lay€knowledge€but€rather€mandates€expertÏœevidence.€€ÌÌà  àThus€it€is€that€the€sole€issue€on€the€merits€of€this€case€requires€expertÏtestimony€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€and€none€appearing€in€the€record,€theÏdefendant€was€entitled€to€summary€judgment,€under€the€standards€set€forth€inÏò òòòEvco€Corpó óóó.€and€ò òòòByrdó óóó,€supra.›Ð ½  ÐÌà  àDefendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€toÏdismiss€the€case€under€rule€12.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€basedÏupon€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€œlimitations.€€In€light€of€the€court's€orderÏregarding€the€motion€on€other€grounds,€addressing€that€denial€is€unnecessary€here.›ÌÌà  àœñ ñProcedurally€in€this€case€defendant€filed€his€answer€to€the€complaint€andÏa€motion€to€dismiss€simultaneously€on€October€4,€1996.€€He€noticed€the€motionÏto€dismiss€for€hearing€on€November€1,€1996.€€On€October€18,€1996€defendantÏfiled€his€affidavit€in€support€of€his€motion€to€dismiss€and€on€October€23,€1996Ïplaintiff€filed€a€counter„affidavit.€€Such€was€the€state€of€the€record€at€the€time€ofÏthe€November€1,€1996€hearing€on€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Order€denyingÏdefendant's€motion€was€entered€November€19,€1996.Ìà  àñ ñ›œñ ñÌñ ñ›œñ ñà \ àñ ñ›œññThe€record€contains€no€indication€that€the€trial€court€excluded€the€twoÏextraneous€affidavits€from€its€consideration€of€the€rule€12.02€motion€but€ratherÏindicates€".€.€.€a€review€of€the€record€in€this€matter.€.€.€."€€For€reasons€well€statedÐ Ø9(5A Ðby€this€court€in€ò òòòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Co.ó óóó,€902€œS.W.2d›€946,€951„952Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€App.€1995)€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€the€rule€12.02€motion€asÏa€motion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà  àConsidering€the€motion€to€dismiss€as€a€summary€judgment€motion€theÏaffidavit€of€the€defendant€is€disregarded€except€where€its€allegations€of€fact€or€ofÏinferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€fact€are€supportive€of€the€œnon„moving€party,€theÏplaintiff.›€€It€is€the€plaintiff's€own€affidavit€of€October€28,€1996€which€is€decisive.€ÏIn€this€affidavit€plaintiff€states:ÌÓ€Óà8  àSome€time€in€the€period€between€February€and€July€of€1994,ÏI€met€my€previous€attorney,€Mr.€Larry€Wilson,€to€discuss€theÏfact€that€the€bankruptcy€court€and€Judge€Wiseman€have€ruledÏagainst€us€based€upon€what€I€felt€could€have€been€erroneousÏadvice€that€was€given€to€me€by€Mr.€Wilson,€who€was€myÏprimary€attorney€in€the€case€in€Maury€County,€Tennessee.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àBy€his€own€sworn€statement,€Bursack€was€aware€as€of€July€1994€that€heÏhad€suffered€a€"legally€cognizable€injury"€and€that€such€injury€had€occurredÏbecause€of€the€".€.€.€erroneous€advice€.€.€."€given€to€him€by€attorney€LawrenceÏSteve€Wilson.€€Suit€was€not€filed€until€August€26,€1996.€€The€action€was€barredÏby€the€statute€of€limitations,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€28„3„104(a)(2).€€ò òòòCarvellÐ s"Ã# Ðv.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€œS.W.2d›€23€(Tenn.€1995);€ò òòòRayford€v.€Leffleró óóó,€953€œS.W.2d›€204Ð $^% Ð(Tenn.€App.€1997).ÌÌà  àThe€rule€12.02(6)€motion€treated€as€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÏwell€taken,€was€properly€granted,€and€is€affirmed.€›ÌÌà \ àññThe›€appellee/defendant€seeks€costs€and€attorney's€fees€on€the€basis€thatÏthis€appeal€is€frivolous€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€27„1„122.€€TheÏapplication€is€well€taken.€€The€need€for€expert€testimony€in€a€legal€malpracticeÏcase€has€been€well€settled€in€Tennessee€for€a€number€of€years.€€Indeed€theÏnecessity€for€such€was€known€by€the€plaintiff€on€April€24,€1997€as€on€that€date€theÏplaintiff€sought€a€continuance€of€a€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏstating€"the€plaintiff€seeks€to€secure€a€counter„affidavit€from€another€attorney€and,Ïaccordingly,€moves€that€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€beÏcontinued€for€approximately€two€weeks€.€.€.€."ÌÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€this€motion€was€entered€on€May€1,Ð Ø9(5A Ð1997€holding,€in€part,€as€follows:ÌÓ€Óà8  àThe€court€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€expert„affidavit€of€theÏdefendant€necessitates€a€counter„expert€affidavit€by€theÏplaintiff€in€order€for€the€plaintiff€to€go€forward€with€this€causeÏof€action€and€accordingly€should€afford€the€plaintiff€aÏreasonable€amount€of€time€to€produce€such€counter„affidavitÏbefore€ruling€upon€this€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àIt€is€therefore€accordingly€ordered,€adjudged€and€decreed€that:ÌÓ€Óà8  à1.à \ àThe€hearing€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÐ è8  Ðhereby€continued€until€the€23rd€day€of€May,€1997€at€9:00€a.m.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à2.à \ àThe€plaintiff€shall€file€his€counter„affidavit€with€theÐ X Ðclerk€of€the€court€before€4:30€p.m.€on€the€19th€of€May€1997Ïor€this€motion€for€summary€judgment€will€be€granted.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€only€affidavit€thereafter€filed€was€that€of€the€plaintiff€himself,€filedÏon€May€19,€1997.ÌÌà  àOn€May€20,€1997€the€trial€judge€sustained€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà  àThis€appeal€had€no€reasonable€chance€of€success€and€is€frivolous€underÏprinciples€set€down€in€ò òòòDavis€v.€Gulf€Ins.€Groupó óóó,€546€œS.W.2d›€583€(Tenn.€1977);Ð $X# Ðò òòòLiberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Tayloró óóó,€590€œS.W.2d›€920€(Tenn.€1979)€and€ò òòòWilson€v.Ð £%ó % ÐRicciardió óóó,€778€œS.W.2d›€450€(Tenn.€App.€1989).Ð >'Ž"' ÐÌà  àThe€action€of€the€trial€court€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€theÏdefendant€is€affirmed€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€assessment€ofÏcosts€and€attorney's€fees€in€favor€of€the€defendant€under€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€27„1„122.ÌÌ€€Ì€ÌÓ€Óà  àà \ àà ¼ àà è àà ˜ àà ð àœà H! àà  # à¼à  àà \ àà ¼ à______________________________›Ìà  àà \ àà ¼ àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÐ Ù9)5= ЇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE