WPC^ ?. _O"qHw %&0b+ %HY>M(v:~Dy* n//seڅ` R0JDage7M gD FC0YUay&s2eBի[E ѱ S f3I5g:"ՉU]ߥei`Q55sI!1d3|-OSowޮ1p *5HEYƒFu{;N7%^[4GZ|=WkwxVвa!H5}3K,(Pr#)Zlw# x_7Jmy*Ko30.Z-ӕ\жftj ?>ẟ;1+iX'4$Ӝv7v2ݒt*4/n8$F/J6<4'8=xbUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m  #  _ %  3N 0DE**',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0[[[[ BFF 0c D3 D-: 0Kgg AS 0 0Do A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Et+s HVW+bk2L~93|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ) R$      1    _ ` TheclaimagainstLakeviewMotorshasbeenconcludedandthisappealonlyconcernsthegrantof  summaryjudgmentinfavorofColonialLoan.(#$  0    R$      2    _ ` TheHeltonsbriefdoesnotaddresstheviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActandwe  willnoticeitnofurther.- -(|G2$ !.82dd8         0   d(|3m$ !.82dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3m$ !.82dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.82dd8     _  28|XXdd8  @ !2INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#2! #Ԉ &   July13,2001Session L X|X2 #2XX|#TEXHELTON,etal.v.COLONIALLOANASSOCIATION,INC.,etal.X|X2  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHawkinsCounty  J @@No.5029JJohnK.Wilson,Judge  6 _FILEDNOVEMBER20,_Ԁ_2001_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200100060COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TexHeltonandhiswifesueColonialLoanAssociation,Inc.,andLakeviewMotors,Inc.,seeking x  damagesinconnectionwithColonialLoansrepossessionofanautomobilesoldtothemby d LakeviewMotors.TheTrialCourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentastoColonialLoan.#2XX|؁#X|X2Theclaim P astoLakeviewMotorshasbeenconcludedandthisappealonlyconcernsthegrantingofasummary < judgmentinfavorofColonialLoan.Wevacatetheordergrantingsummaryjudgmentandremand. (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated; P CauseRemanded  <   #2X|7#X|X.2HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,  andD.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined.  PhillipL.Boyd,Rogersville,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,TexHeltonandwife,Judy_Helton_  H.ScottReams,Morristown,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,ColonialLoanAssociation,Inc. `  OPINION #2XX|)#X|X2 8!    #2XX|D #X|X2    ThisisasuitbyTexHeltonandhiswife,Judy_Helton_,againstColonialLoanAssociation, 6#" Inc.,andLakeviewMotors,Inc., #  1      ׀arisingfromthesaleofanautomobilebyLakeviewMotorstothe "$r# HeltonsandtheassignmentofanindebtednessincurredtopurchasetheautomobiletoColonial %^ $ Loan. %J!%   &6"&   TheHeltonsseekdamagesforunlawfulrepossessionoftheautomobile,trespassand  violationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,codifiedinTennesseeCodeAnnotated,4718  101,etseq. #  2      ׀     Thefactsarerelativelyundisputed.OnAugust25,1997,theHeltonspurchaseda1990 ` Mazda_Miata_ԀautomobilefromLakeviewMotorsandenteredintoasecurityagreementwhich L  securespaymentofthepurchaseprice.ShortlythereaftertheHeltonsfoundtheMazdawastoosmall 8  fortheirfamilyandpurchaseda1991Toyota_Celica_ԀonSeptember20,1997.Inconnectionwiththis $ t transaction,anagreementofsubstitutionofcollateralwasenteredintobetweentheHeltons,  ` LakeviewMotorsandColonialLoan.Thevehiclesubstituted,however,wasnotthevehicleactually  L  purchasedbytheHeltons,but,instead,a1990ToyotoCelica.Titleforthe1991Toyotawasissued  8  totheHeltonswhichshowednolien. $  Ѐ  TheHeltonsbecamedelinquentastotwoorthreepaymentsontheloanandColonialLoan   repossessedthe1991ToyotaandstoreditwithLakeviewMotors.     TherepossessedautomobilewasultimatelysoldonMarch2,1998,althoughthenoticeof p saledescribedthe1990Toyota.Overfourmonthslater,onJuly7,1998,asuitwasfiledby \ LakeviewMotorswhichhadrepurchasedtheoriginalobligationfromColonialLoantorecoverthe H balanceowedontheindebtednessaftersaleofthe1991Toyota.Thissuitprecipitatedthefilingof 4 thecasepresentlyonappeal.  p   TheTrialJudgesustainedamotionforsummaryjudgmentbyColonialLoantoreformthe H substitutionofcollateralinstrumenttoshowthatthevehiclesubstitutedwasthe1991Toyotarather 4 thanthe1990Toyota.HealsograntedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofColonialLoanastothe   originalactionfiledbytheHeltons.     TheHeltonsappealcontendingthattheTrialJudgeerredingrantingColonialLoansmotion  forsummaryjudgmenttoreformthesubstitutionofcollateralinstrument,andingrantingsummary  judgmentagainstthemastotheiroriginalclaim. l   Ourstandardofreviewastosummaryjudgmentshasbeenrecentlyrestatedinthecaseof D! Staplesv.CBL&AssociatesS.W.3d83,89(Tenn.2000): 0"  Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummaryjudgment $X" contextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmost $D # favorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesin %0!$ thenonmovingpartysfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv. &"% Hall,847S.W.2dat21011.Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhen '#& boththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermitareasonable (#' persontoreachonlyoneconclusion.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153  (Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).    WeconcludetheTrialCourtactedproperlyingrantingthesummaryjudgmentastothe t counterclaimofColonialLoanseekingreformation.WesaythisbecauseMrs.Heltoninher ` depositionspecificallyacknowledgedthatitwasinfactthe1991Toyotathatwaspurchasedand L  shouldhavebeensubstitutedascollateral.Thus,wehaveamutualmistakejustifyingreformation. 8  Williamsv.Botts,3S.W.3d508(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). $ t   Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatColonialLoanwasentitledtorepossessthe1991Toyota  L  whichwastitledtotheHeltonswithoutanynotationoflienatthetimetherepossessionoccurred.  8  Ofcourse,ifthejudgmentreformingthesubstitutionofcollateralinstrumenthadbeeneffectedprior $  torepossessionwewouldfindnofaultonthepartofColonialLoan.     ThefactsleadinguptorepossessionarethatrepresentativesofColonialLoantalkedwith   Mrs.HeltonandadvisedheritwouldbenecessaryforColonialLoantorepossessthevehicle.Atthat   time,ColonialLoanhadnonoticethatitslienhadnotbeenperfected.Althougharepresentativeof p ColonialLoantoldMrs.HeltonthatrepossessionwouldtakeplaceonaSaturdaymorningatthe \ homeoftheHeltons,itinfacttookplaceonFridaynightwhenthevehiclewasparkedinthe H Heltonsfrontyardsome10feetfromtheirdriveway.Mrs.Heltonneverspecificallygranted 4 ColonialLoanauthoritytorepossessthevehicle,butitdoesappearthatsheacquiescedinthevehicle  p beingrepossessedonSaturdaymorning.  \   BecauseatthetimeofrepossessiontheHeltonshadtitletothe1991Toyota,unencumbered 4 byalien,weconcludethatColonialLoansrepossessionwasunwarranted.Moreover,itisarguable   thatifinfactitdidhaveavalidlien,therepossessiononthenightbeforeColonialLoans   representativehadtoldMrs.Heltonthatitwouldrepossesswaslikewiseunwarranted.    Finally,itappearsthatcertainpersonalpropertyownedbytheHeltonswasinthecarandonly  aportionofthepropertywaseverreturnedtotheHeltons.Theywouldatleastbeentitledtoa l judgmentforthevalueoftheunreturnedpersonalpropertywhichwasintherepossessedautomobile, X  aswellasattheveryleastajudgmentfornominaldamagesfortrespass. D!   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacatedandthecauseremanded #l! forproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstColonial $X" LoanAssociation,Inc. $D #    `     h   _________________________________________ (#'    `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE )$(