WPCI T>a& {]JՕݬOOxįSۛsx$Y!5é:F턀A=obz,N"fq,7.ĀAWfh* Rr$~kpID5s,.!Luxx+\B0 ~pK3X&WgALq2*-ND;Mїd slrV.B'1b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   P  0DNEllllllllllllllllllllllb>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0FFFF B11 0N D3 D-% 0KRR AS 0 0DZ AHP LaserJet 40500B- (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*bk1hݣ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU R?$      1    _Theaffidavitsareessentiallyidentical.TheonesignedbyMr.Brayisattachedasanappendixtothisopinion.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   x R?$      2    _Forexample,Rule56.06providesthat [_s]upporting_...affidavitsshallbemadeonpersonalknowledge,shall  setforthsuchfactsaswouldbeadmissibleinevidence,...(Emphasisadded).  R?$      3    _Rule56.06furtherprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:    8 ` Whenamotionforsummaryjudgmentismadeandsupportedasprovidedinthis 8 rule,anadversepartymaynotrestuponthemereallegationsordenialsofthe L adversepartyspleading,buthisorherresponse,byaffidavitsorasotherwise   providedinthisrule,mustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuine  issuefortrial.t` x` x (Emphasisadded).- -(|G2?$ !.8_dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8_dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8_dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8_dd8     _  _8XXdd8  @ C_INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#_C #Ԉ &   March29,2001Session L XX_ #_XX#JACK_HUTTER_v.ROBERTM.COHEN,etal.XX_  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Blount_ԀCounty  J @@Nos.L11686andL11709JamesB.Scott,Jr.,Judge  6 FILEDAUGUST5,_2002_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNos.E199901859_COA_ԄR3CV&   ЀE199901857_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<h` A i     Z  P   #_X#XX._CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,dissenting. (x  #_XX#XX_#_XXe#XX_    Icannotconcurinthemajoritys_affirmance_Ԁofthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment ( inthese#_XX#XX_tworelatedlegalmalpracticeactions.Myunwillingnesstojoinmycolleaguesisbasedupon  mybeliefthattheaffidavitsofdefendants/attorneysRobertM.CohenandH.AllenBrayarelegally  insufficienttorequiretheplaintiffJack_Hutter_ԀtoengageinwhatIrefertoaslitigation onthe  papers.    Thelawimposesathresholdobligationuponadefendantseekingsummaryjudgment;such ` adefendant musteitheraffirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenon_movant_sclaimor L  conclusivelyestablishanaffirmativedefense. _McCarley_Ԁv.WestQualityFoodService ,960 8!  S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998)(citing Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,215n.5(Tenn.1993)).Ifthe $"t! defendantfailstosatisfythisthresholdobligation, thenon_movant_sburdentoproduceeither #`" supportingaffidavitsordiscoverymaterialisnottriggeredandthemotionforsummaryjudgment #L# fails. _McCarley_ ,960S.W.2dat588(citing Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215)(emphasisadded). $8 $   OurSupremeCourthasindicatedthatnonspecificdefenseaffidavitsdonottriggeran &"& obligationonthepartoftheplaintifftopresentaffidavitsanddiscoverymaterialdemonstratinga '"' genuineissueofmaterialfact. Blanchardv._Kellum_ ,975S.W.2d522,525(Tenn.1998).Seealso (#(  Harrisv._Chern_ ,33S.W.3d741,743n.1(Tenn.2000). )$)   p*%*   Ineachofthecasesnowbeforeus,thedefendantinhisaffidavit  #  1      ׀basicallystatesthe   following:Iamalicensedattorney;Iknowthestandardsofprofessionalpracticeapplicableto  attorneyspracticingin_Blount_ԀCounty;Ihave _handle[d_]casespertainingto,andamfamiliarwith  thelawapplicableto,familylaw,landlord/tenant,andunlawful_detainer_Ԁcases;Iwasretainedbythe t plaintifftorepresenthimwithrespecttoacustodymatterandamatterpertainingtopossessionof ` ahouse;Iamfamiliarwiththefactssurroundingtheaforementionedrepresentation;and,finally, I L  didnotdeviatefromorfallbelowthelegallyacceptedstandardofpracticeforattorneyspracticing 8  lawin_Blount_ԀCounty,Tennessee,andthesurroundingarea,nordidIfailtoexercisethatdegreeof $ t care,skill,anddiligencewhichiscommonlypossessedandexercisedbyattorneysinpracticeinthis  ` jurisdiction,relativetomyaforementionedrepresentationofJack_Hutter_.  L    Inreadingtheaffidavits,Iamstruckbywhatbothofthemfailtodo.Ineachcase,the $  affidavitdoesnotstateanyfactspertainingtotheadvicegivenortheservicesperformedbythe   attorney.Inotherwords,afterreadingtheaffidavits,oneislefttoponder:Whatdidtheattorneydo   ornotdoinconnectionwiththisrepresentationasitpertainstotheshortcomingsallegedbythe   plaintiffasthebasisforhislegalmalpracticecase?Theaffidavitsaresimplydevoidofany   informationonthissubject.Theattorneyineachcasesaysthatheknowswhathedid;buthe p doesntsharethisinformationwiththereader. \   Idonotunderstandhowaplaintiffcanbeexpectedtodemonstrateagenuineissueof 4 materialfactifheorshedoesnotknowthematerialfactsuponwhichthedefendantreliestosupport  p hisorherpositionthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriate.AsIunderstandtheconceptembodiedin  \ Tenn.R.Civ.P.56,atrialisnotnecessarywhenthefactsareclearandundisputedandthosefacts H showconclusivelythatthedefendantisentitledtoajudgment;butthisraisesanobviousquestion: 4 Howdoweknowthatthefactsareclearandundisputedifadefendantssupportingmaterialfails   totelluswhatthematerialfactsare?     IfadefendantsobligationunderRule56istopresentfactsshowingthatheorsheisentitled  tojudgmentinsummaryfashion!andIbelieveitclearlyis!theaffidavitsbeforeussimplydonot  satisfythisobligation.Inmyjudgment,anaffidavitthatsimplyassertsthat(a)Iknowthestandard, l (b)Iknowthefacts(withoutrevealingthem),and(c)Ididnotdeviatefromorfallbelowthe X  applicablestandard,doesnotcomportwithmyunderstandingoftheletterT #  2      ׀orspiritofRule56.If D! factualspecificityisrequiredinthematerialsubmittedbythenon_movant_, #  3      ׀whyisitnotalso 0"  requiredwithrespecttothematerialsubmittedbythe_movant_,who,afterall,hastheprimaryburden  toconvincethecourtthatheorsheisentitledtosummaryjudgment?Ifagenerallyworded,  _conclusory_Ԁaffidavit,suchastheonesnowbeforeus,hastheeffectoftriggeringthenon_movant_s  obligationtobringforth specificfacts,seeRule56.06,Ibelievethatsuchaholdingnecessarily t meansthatthenon_movant_,ratherthanthe_movant_,hastheburdenofpersuasiononsummary ` judgment.Obviously,sucharesultiscontrarytowellestablishedsummaryjudgmentlaw.See,e.g., L   Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215. 8    Iwouldholdthatthedefendantsaffidavitsdidnottriggeranobligationonthepartofthe  ` plaintifftoshowadisputedmaterialfact,and,consequently,thatthedefendantsarenotentitledto  L  summaryjudgment.Accordingly,Irespectfullydissent.  8     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE