WPCG 3aoDSL,a/Fe 4̶k_><HïyɆz➐ͨV=v TPs4I7՗_l-dx.E(b"q"]eT˗}?36KuC?<v8P—GdTqUzor6.ՊY`vp'k6o*FWo.\A. lZl]ӅlW} |^zƻQc TD=С(EKm܄K)`c 1.HtґUÄ% H12d‘P`x>ΉS6ʼFdҷjUʼn#R07dxc҆Pt4c3 tD{'}#' LMѕF"G8]NJ# F UNQ % 0( UF UP U Fc $ 0l 0D9 } w@]4UFUFGUF.tUF PUFIKe$UN+UF+D,UF-V-UF415UF5UFC6UF6 6UF7 0D"8UFf88UNr9 B99 A9UF::g;UF*= D3p=U:=====??UFDDDDDDDD 0KDDDDD D+IEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIE AOtEEE 0DF D/F BFHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<(M 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    2    XXXX.XXUSIisidentifiedinoneofthecasesasWSICarExchange,Inc.All P  referencesinthisopiniontoUSIincludeWSICarExchange,Inc.((3$ !      0  (#$  0     $    3    XXXX.XXApparently,LedfordbegandefraudingLongin1993.Hiscriminal P  activitywentundiscoveredbyLonguntillate1994.Duringtheperiodofthiscriminalactivity,LedfordwasGeneralSalesManagerofLong.ItisundisputedthatLedfordhadLongsauthoritytoactinthiscapacityinhisdealingswiththedefendants. + , E- . D/ D0 D1 6 7 8 Ӏw#%l 33|xB <Q 9Z .Courier New Regular z  $    13    XAXXXIX XAInWeemsdeposition,whenquestionedaboutthedifferencebetweenthe P  payeeonthechecksandtheselleronthetitles,heanswersasfollows:   ` Q:DidyoueveraskMr.Ledfordaboutwhythatwas?   ` A:Wehadadiscussionortwoaboutthatearly.   ` Q:Okay.Tellmewhatyourecallaboutthosediscussionortwo.̀   ` A:Heindicatedtomeearlyon,asyoullalreadyfindthatÌhavealreadysaid,thatheandNelsonLongwereinvolvediǹsomeothercarcompanies,ofwhichSignature,Ispecificallỳremember,wasonofthem,anditmadenodifference.Inaddition,inthesingletransactionatissuebetweenLongandMTMC,Kitchenassertsthefollowinginhisaffidavit:8  8`   SeveraldaysafterItookthevehicle,anotheremployeeofLongPontiacdeliveredthetitleandbillofsaletomeinDavidsonCounty.Thisemployeerepresentedtomethatthecheckforpaymentofthepurchasepriceshouldbemadepayableto SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.asthe totelotforLongPontiac.Thisemployeealsoprovidedmewithabillofsale,odometerstatementanddulyexecutedtitlereflectingthat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthetransferordealerforthiscar.Mr.Ledfordhadalsotoldmethat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthe totelotforLongPontiac. ` x` x    $    5    XXXX.XXItisundisputedthatLedfordsofficialtitlewasGeneralSales P  Managerandthathewasapartownerofthecompany.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular =  $    7    XXXX.XXItisnotclearwhetherWeemsreceivedthepaperworkoncarspurchased P  byWeemsonGamblesbehalforifhereceivedonlythepaperworkoncarshepurchasedforUSI.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    1    XXXX.XXOnthecoversheetofthisopinion,wehavereflectedthestylesof P  theseconsolidatedcasesastheyappearonthepartiesbriefs;however,thejudgmentsappealedfromonlyappeartorelatetothelitigationinstitutedbyLongPontiacCompany.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    8    XXXX.XXLongsclaimsagainsttheappelleesarebeforeuspursuanttoRule P  54.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    13     XXXX .X$XIn# XX$.c# .X$XԀWeems# XX$.# .X$X# XX$.# .X$X#*H $.D#.. Hdeposition,whenquestionedaboutthedifferencebetweenthe P  payeeonthechecksandtheselleronthetitles,heanswersasfollows:   ` Q:...[D]idyoueveraskMr.Ledfordaboutwhythatwas?   ` A:Wehadadiscussionortwoaboutthatearly.   ` Q:Okay.Tellmewhatyourecallaboutthosediscussionortwo.̀   ` A:Heindicatedtomeearlyon,asyoullalreadyfindthatÌhavealreadysaid,thatheandNelsonLongwereinvolvediǹsomeothercarcompanies,ofwhichSignature,Ispecificallỳremember,wasoneofthem,anditmadenodifference.Inaddition,inthesingletransactionatissuebetweenLongandMTMC,Kitchenassertsthefollowinginhisaffidavit:8  8`   SeveraldaysafterItookthevehicle,anotheremployeeofLongPontiacdeliveredthetitleandbillofsaletomeinDavidsonCounty.Thisemployeerepresentedtomethatthecheckforpaymentofthepurchasepriceshouldbemadepayableto SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.asthe totelotforLongPontiac.Thisemployeealsoprovidedmewithabillofsale,odometerstatementanddulyexecutedtitlereflectingthat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthetransferordealerforthiscar.Mr.Ledfordhadalsotoldmethat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthe totelotforLongPontiac. ` x` x #*H (.w##*XHX H5# A  $    13    X XX...#XoX XD#X XXoI X#I I[D]idIn#II##XAX I#ԀWeemsdeposition,whenquestionedaboutthe P  differencebetweenthepayeeonthechecksandtheselleronthetitles,heanswersasfollows:   ` Q:DidyoueveraskMr.Ledfordaboutwhythatwas?   ` A:Wehadadiscussionortwoaboutthatearly.   ` Q:Okay.Tellmewhatyourecallaboutthosediscussionortwo.̀   ` A:Heindicatedtomeearlyon,asyoullalreadyfindthatÌhavealreadysaid,thatheandNelsonLongwereinvolvediǹsomeothercarcompanies,ofwhichSignature,Ispecificallỳremember,wasonofthem,anditmadenodifference.Inaddition,inthesingletransactionatissuebetweenLongandMTMC,Kitchenassertsthefollowinginhisaffidavit:8  8`   SeveraldaysafterItookthevehicle,anotheremployeeofLongPontiacdeliveredthetitleandbillofsaletomeinDavidsonCounty.Thisemployeerepresentedtomethatthecheckforpaymentofthepurchaseprice  \  shouldbemadepayableto SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.asthe totelotforLongPontiac.Thisemployeealsoprovidedmewithabillofsale,odometerstatementanddulyexecutedtitlereflectingthat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthetransferordealerforthiscar.Mr.Ledfordhadalsotoldmethat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthe totelotforLongPontiac. ` x` x (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    4    XXXX.XXWeemswasashareholder,officer,andtheprincipalagentofUSI.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    13    $XXXX$.X$XIn#$XX$.c#$.X$XԀWeems#$XX$.#$.X$X#H $.D#(. Hdeposition,whenquestionedaboutthedifferencebetweenthe P  payeeonthechecksandtheselleronthetitles,heanswersasfollows:   ` Q:...[D]idyoueveraskMr.Ledfordaboutwhythatwas?   ` A:Wehadadiscussionortwoaboutthatearly.   ` Q:Okay.Tellmewhatyourecallaboutthosediscussionortwo.̀   ` A:Heindicatedtomeearlyon,asyoullalreadyfindthatÌhavealreadysaid,thatheandNelsonLongwereinvolvediǹsomeothercarcompanies,ofwhichSignature,Ispecificallỳremember,wasoneofthem,anditmadenodifference.Inaddition,inthesingletransactionatissuebetweenLongandMTMC,Kitchenassertsthefollowinginhisaffidavit:8  8`   SeveraldaysafterItookthevehicle,anotheremployeeofLongPontiacdeliveredthetitleandbillofsaletomeinDavidsonCounty.Thisemployeerepresentedtomethatthecheckforpaymentofthepurchasepriceshouldbemadepayableto SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.asthe totelotforLongPontiac.Thisemployeealsoprovidedmewithabillofsale,odometerstatementanddulyexecutedtitlereflectingthat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthetransferordealerforthiscar.Mr.Ledfordhadalsotoldmethat SignatureAutoCredit,Inc.wasthe totelotforLongPontiac. ` x` x #H (.5##XHX H#<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    9    "XXXX".X"XReferencestoWeemsintheopinionwillincludehiscompany,USI.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular<L4 9Z .Courier New Regular<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    6    &XXXX&.X&XTherecorddoesnotindicatewhichemployeeordepartmentofLongwas P  responsibleforhandlingthepaperwork.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular(3$ !  <Q 9Z .Courier New RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular d)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular 3XXXX3ZX3X Ad   FILED33Z   December17,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk  ]  $    10    1XXXX1.X1XLongsmotionbeforeustoconsidertheportionsofWeemsdeposition P  attachedtoitsbriefinresponsetothedefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,filedinthetrialcourt,isgranted.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular++++'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular   $    11    XXXX.XXLongsoutsideauditorsidentifiedaconsiderablenumberofvehicles P  thatarerelatedtoLedfordsbusinessarrangementwithWeems,USI,andGamble.Longmovedtohavethecourtconsiderthisinformationonthegroundsofmistake,surprise,fraud,andmisrepresentation,orothermisconductofWeems,USI,orGamble.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion.   $    12    :XXXX:.X:XNelsonLongassertsthesefactsinhisaffidavit: P  Ѐ   `      8 ` Itisnotcustomaryoracommontradepracticetogiveblankcheckstoemployeesofautomobiledealershipsforthepurchasesofneworusedvehicles. ` `    8 ` Itisnotcustomaryorordinaryforawholesalertopurchasecarsfromatotelot. ` `    8 ` SomeofthecarspurchasedbyMr.Weemshadneverbeentitledwhichinmyexperience...wouldconstitutearareoccurrenceintheautomobileindustry. ` `    8 ` Itiscommonpracticefordealershipstoprohibitemployeesandagentsfromsellinganddealingincarsincompetitionwiththedealershipbywhichtheyareemployed. ` `    8 ` Itwouldbeveryunusualandsuspectforadealershipsemployeeoragenttodirectawholesalertomaketheircheckpayabletoanentityotherthanthedealershipbywhichtheagentoremployeewasemployed.<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular( $ Figure  1  'dxd'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛP XXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7<XXdd7@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  8 l/26&"h 8 `E tt06H lߛ HH(#(#8 @ |ATKNOXVILLE HHT$T$USICAREXCHANGE,INC.andCHARLES  )C/ANO. * М03A019707CV00268 HH(#(#R.WEEMS,Individually, h     )      `     h     ) (#(#HH   ` Plaintiffs, h     ) 2     `     h     )v.   `     h     ) .     `     h     )   `     h     )LONGPONTIACCOMPANYandALLAN  ) `  МLEDFORD,Individually, h     ) 6    `     h     )   ` Defendants. h     ) 2    `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )LONGPONTIACCOMPANY, h     ) 6    `     h     )   ` PlaintiffAppellant,  )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE    X   `     h     )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTX    `     h     )v.   `     h     ) d#    `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )ALLANLEDFORD,Individuallyandwife,)TERRILEDFORD,Individually;ALLAN  ) 'B# LEDFORDd/b/aPRESTIGECLEANERS,  ) h($ aSoleProprietorship;SIGNATUREAUTO)CREDIT,INC.;MIDDLETENNESSEEMOTOR)̜CARS,INC.;GAMBLEMOTORCOMPANY,)INC.;WSICAREXCHANGE,INC.;)CHARLESR.WEEMS,Individually;ROBERT)OLIVER,Individuallyandwife,LOIS)OLIVER,Individually, h     ) B.#+    `     h     )HONORABLESAMUELH.PAYNE,   ` DefendantsAppellees.  )JUDGE /%- ̛̜XForAppellant    h      p ForAppelleeCharlesR.Weems 5x+4 М   `     h      p andUSICarExchange,Inc.XF.SCOTTLEROY    h      p  t7$-6 МLeitner,Williams,Dooley     p DAVIDB.KESLER J8-7 XҀ&Napolitan,PLLC   h      p STACIEL.CARAWAY  9.8 XChattanooga,Tennessee h      p Spears,Moore,Rebman& 9/9    `     h      p Williams 9/9 М   `     h      p Chattanooga,Tennessee   `     h      p ForAppelleeMiddleX   `     h      p TennesseeMotorCars,Inc.X   `     h      p NADERBAYDOUN   `     h      p STEPHENKNIGHT   `     h      p Baydoun&Reese,P.A.   `     h      p Nashvile,Tennessee   `     h      p ForAppelleeGamble   `     h      p MotorCompany,Inc.   `     h      p K.STEPHENPOWERS   `     h      p LISAM.PATEX   `     h      p Witt,Gaither&Whitaker,P.C.XS   `     h      p Chattanooga,Tennessee̛̜@$XXXX T XXOPINION    TXX  Ԉ /%- ̛̜ ^:09 МAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  9/9 Л     ` Thisisanaction  #  1      כfordamagesfiledbyLongPontiac P  Company( Long),againstmultipledefendants,arisingoutofthedefalcationsofLongsagent,AllanLedford( Ledford).LongϜappealedfromthetrialcourtsjudgment,arguingthatthetrialϜcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants,CharlesR.Weems( Weems),USICarExchange,Inc.( USI),XXXXP  #  2      #XXXXa# H  GambleMotorCompany,Inc.( Gamble),andMiddleTennesseeMotorCars,Inc.( MTMC),allofwhomacknowledgepurchasingautomobilesfromLedfordatLongsplaceofbusiness.Long,initscomplaintforfraud,conspiracytodefraud,conversion,andgrossnegligence,allegesthatthedefendantskneworshouldhaveknown(a)thatLedfordwasengagingincriminalactivityXXXX x  #  3      #XXXX#Ԁto 8 defraudLongand(b)thatLedfordwasexceedingtheauthoritygrantedtohimbyLong.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatnoϜgenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistedwithrespecttoLongsclaimsand,furthermore,thatthedefendantswereentitledtosummaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw.Onthisappeal,Longessentiallypresentsthefollowingquestionforourreview:  8 ` Ingrantingsummaryjudgment,didthetrialcourterrindeterminingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists? ` `  ̜  -"* ӛ  I.Facts P     ` Theeventsleadingtothislitigationbeganinearly1994whenWeems,awholesaledealerofusedcars,wenttoLonginsearchofusedvehiclestopurchaseonbehalfofhiscompany,USI,  #  4      כandonbehalfofGamble,anothercardealership.Weemswas `  instructedbyLongsfinancemanagertoseeLedfordregardingseveralusedcarsinwhichWeemshadaninterest.LedfordtoldWeemsthathewasGeneralManager@  #  5      כandapartownerofthe X  company.WeemsandLedfordcommencedabusinessarrangementϜpursuanttowhichWeemsthereafterpurchasedusedcarsatwholesalepricessetbyLedfordandagreedtobyWeems.   ` DuringthesevenmonthperiodofhisdealingswithLong,WeemsdealtexclusivelywithLedfordonallpurchases.WeemsandLedfordcompletedover70transactionsinvolvingmorethan100usedvehicles.Inallofthesetransactions,WeemsinspectedandtookdeliveryofthevehiclesatLongsplaceofϜbusiness.HealsopaidforeverypurchasebywritingacheckonϜthebankaccountofeitherUSIorGamble.AfterWeemstenderedthechecksandreceivedpossessionofthevehicles,Long%h  #  6      כsent +8!( Weemsthepaperworkrelatingtothesales,includingtitles,odometerstatements,andsometimesbillsofsaleonthevehicles.  #  7      כ 00&. Ї   ` Inthebeginning,WeemsmadeallcheckspayabletoLong.Later,LedforddirectedWeemstomakethecheckspayableϜtoSignatureAuto,QualityMotors,ortoindividualsorentitieswhomLedfordidentifiedascustomerswhohadtradedvehiclestoLong.HeexplainedtoWeemsthatthiswouldexpeditethetitleprocessandthatbothSignatureAutoandQualityMotorswereLongs totelots.XXXXTotelotsareoffsitecarlotsusedtosell @  lowvaluevehiclesthathavebeensoldortradedtoadealer.#XXXXd*#ԛ   МThereafter,WeemswrotechecksonhisprincipalsbankaccountsasdirectedbyLedford.Earlyon,WeemsnotedthatthepaperworkonpurchasesforwhichhehadwrittencheckstoSignatureAutoorQualityMotors,listedLongasthesellerofthevehicles.WhenhediscussedthiswithLedford,LedfordtoldhimthatheandNelsonLong,presidentofLong,wereinvolvedinseveraldifferentcompanies,andthat itmadenodifference𛀜astowhomthecheckwasmadepayable.LedfordrepresentedtoWeemsthathehadLongs fullauthorityandconsenttoconductthesetransactions.   ` Insometransactions,LedforddirectedWeemstomakeϜcheckspayabletohimindividually.HetoldWeemsthatheϜpersonallyownedthevehiclesbeingsold.Ononeoccasion,LedfordtoldWeemstoleavethepayeeonthecheckblankbecausehedidnotknowthecompany,i.e.,SignatureAuto,Quality h0&. Motors,orLong,throughwhomthecarswouldbebilled.Thischeck,writtenonGamblesaccount,wasultimatelyfilledinbyLedfordwiththenameofPrestigeCleanersasthepayee.XXXXPrestigeCleanerswasacompanypersonallyownedbyLedford.It  7,6 wasnotaffiliatedinanywaywithLong.#XXXX/#ԛWeemsdidnotbecome 8x.8 awarethatLedfordhadinsertedPrestigeCleanersasthepayeeuntilafterLongdiscoveredLedfordscriminalactivity.Also,mostofthecheckswrittenbyWeemsinvolvedpaymentformorethanonevehicle.AtLedfordsdirection,WeemsdidnotnoteonϜthesechecksthewholesalepricesofthevariousvehiclespurchasedinthosetransactions.   ` InadditiontodoingbusinesswithWeemsin1994,LedfordalsosoldusedcarstoMTMCthroughPaulKitchen( Kitchen),anagentofMTMC.InSeptember,1994,LedfordarrangedwithKitchentosellMTMCa highdollarusedvehicle.Onthisoccasion,KitchentookdeliveryofthevehicleatLongsplaceofbusiness,withoutimmediatelywritingacheckforitspurchase.Afewdayslater,anunidentifiedemployeeofLongdeliveredthepaperworktoMTMCandrequestedacheckpayabletoSignatureAuto.SinceKitchenhadbeentoldpreviouslybyLedfordthatSignatureAutowasatotelotforLong,andbecausethepaperwork,whichincludedthetitle,odometerstatement,andbillofsale,listedSignatureAutoastheseller,MTMCwroteacheckpayabletoSignatureAutoforthepurchaseofthevehicle.   ` Sometimeinlate1994,LongdiscoveredLedfordscriminalactivity.Longthenpressedchargesagainsthim.LedfordwasconvictedandgivenasentenceoftenyearsϜimprisonment.Hewasorderedtopayrestitutionof$700,000.LongthenfiledthissuitagainstWeems,USI,Gamble,MTMC,andothers.  #  8      כThedefendantsanswered,denyingtheywereguiltyof `5+4 anyoftheallegationssetforthinthecomplaint. 7,6 Ї   ` WeemsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonhisandUSIsbehalf,statingthattherewerenogenuineissuesofϜmaterialfact.!  #  9      כHesupportedhismotionwithhispersonal  P affidavit;Ledfordsdeposition;andvariousexhibits.GambleϜsubsequentlyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,alsoaverringthatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistedastotheclaimsagainstit.GamblesupporteditsmotionwiththeaffidavitofϜitsPresident,JamesT.Gamble;anaffidavitfromWeems;Ledfordsdeposition;andotherdocuments.Finally,MTMCfiledϜitsmotionforsummaryjudgment,alsotakingthepositionthatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistedastoanyofLongsclaims.MTMCsupporteditsmotionwiththepleadings;Longsdiscoveryresponses;Ledfordsdeposition;andanaffidavitfromPaulKitchen.   ` Longresponded0@  #  10      כtothemotionsofWeemsandGamble, (# contendingthatgenuineissuesoffactdidexistregardingtheϜmovantsknowledgeofwhetherLedfordwasexceedinghisauthority.Longsupporteditsresponsewiththepleadings,theaffidavitofitsPresident,NelsonLong;thedepositionofWeems;theinterrogatoryresponsesofWeems;andtheentirerecordinthecase.Stilllater,LongrespondedtoMTMCsmotionforsummaryjudgment,againstatingthatgenuineissuesoffactϜexistedregardingthatdefendantsknowledgeofwhetherLedfordwasexceedinghisauthority.ItsupporteditsmotionwithtwoaffidavitsofNelsonLongandtheentirerecordinthecase.The 3h)2 trialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentonallclaimsagainsttheappellees,findingthatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactϜexisted.ThecourtlaterdeniedLongsmotiontoalterorϜamendXXXX6  #  11      #XXXX @#ԀthefinaljudgmentastoWeems,USI,andGamble. H @II.StandardofReview H     ` WeexaminethetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentunderthestandardsetforthinRule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.ϜSummaryjudgmentisappropriatewhere:  8 ` thepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. ` `  Ӝ Id .Themovingpartyhastheinitialburdenofproducing $ Мcompetent,materialevidenceshowingthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfact. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,211 '4# (Tenn.1993).Themovingpartycansatisfythisburdenbyofferingevidencethat affirmativelynegate[s]anessentialelementofthenonmovingpartysclaim,orthemovingpartycan conclusivelyestablishanaffirmativedefensethatdefeatstheϜnonmovingpartysclaim. Id .at215n.5.Themovingpartyis /%- entitledtosummaryjudgmentunlessthenonmovingpartycontradictsthefactualpredicateofthemotionbypresentingcompetentandadmissiblematerialevidence. Caldwellv.Nissan 5*3 MotorMfg.Corp .,968S.W.2d863,865(Tenn.App.1997).The P  nonmovingparty mustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthere   isagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial. Byrd ,847S.W.2d   at211.(Emphasisin Byrd ). P    ` Ourreviewofagrantofsummaryjudgmentinvolvesonlyaquestionoflaw,andhencenopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothetrialcourtsjudgment. McCallv.Wilder ,913 `  S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995); Carvellv.Bottoms, 900S.W.2d23, (  26(Tenn.1995); Gonzalesv.AlmanConstr.Co., 857S.W.2d42,  44(Tenn.App.1993).Inevaluatingamotionforsummaryjudgment,wemustdetermine: (1)whetherafactualdispute ` exists;(2)whetherthedisputedfactismaterialtotheoutcome   ofthecase;and(3)whetherthedisputedfactcreatesagenuine   issuefortrial. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat214.(Emphasisin Byrd ). "P МInmakingourevaluation,wemust viewtheevidenceinalightfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandallowallreasonableinferencesinhisfavor. Id .at215.Summaryjudgmentshould 'h" begrantedifthefactsandconclusionspermitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion. Carvell ,900S.W.2dat26. (+ & @ III.ThePartiesContentions .H$*    ` Longarguesthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbevacatedforseveralreasons.Itcontendsthatsummaryjudgmentisinappropriatebecausethedefendantshavenotcarriedtheirburdenofestablishing(1)alackofmaterialfactualissuesand(2)theirentitlementtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.ϜLonginsiststhatthedefendantskneworshouldhaveknownthat H:/8 LedfordexceededhisauthorityasLongsagentwhenheinstructedWeemsandMTMCtomakecheckspayabletoindividualsorentitiesotherthanLong.ItfurtherarguesthatmaterialfactualissuesremainregardingthedefendantsknowledgeofLedfordscriminalactivitiesandtheirparticipationinpracticesthatwerecontrarytotheusualandcustomarypracticesoftheautomobileindustryregardingthetransferofcartitles.   ` Thedefendants,meanwhile,arguethatLedfordsactionsarethesolecauseofLongslosses.TheyarguethattheiractionswereingoodfaithandattheauthorizeddirectionofLedford,whohadactualandapparentauthorityastheGeneralSalesManagerofLong.@l l IV.ApplicableLawandAnalysis !0 Ѐ̜   ` Webeginouranalysisofthiscasebynotingthatthepartiestothiscontroversyappeartoagreeonthebasicfactsofthecase,i.e.,thatLedfordworkedforLongasitsGeneralSales 8($ Manager;thathehadtheauthoritytosellcarsonbehalfofLong;thatvehiclesweredeliveredtothedefendantsineverytransaction;andthatLedfordengagedincriminalactivitiesduringthetimethatWeems,Gamble,andMTMCwerecustomersofLong.Wemustnowexamineeachclaim,inturn,todetermineifanymaterialfactsareindispute,soastoprecludesummaryjudgment.Ӝ  87,6 Л@&A.Fraud P     ` Toprevailonaclaimoffraudattrial,Longmustestablish anintentionalmisrepresentationwithregardtoamaterialfact;knowledgeoftherepresentationsfalsity,i.e., ( itwasmadeknowinglyorwithoutbeliefinitstruthorrecklesslywithoutregardtoitstruthorfalsity;theplaintiffreasonablyreliedonthemisrepresentationandsuffereddamages;andthemisrepresentationrelatestoanexistingorpastfact. Hillv.JohnBanksBuick,Inc. ,875S.W.2d667,670 8 (Tenn.App.1993).   ` Inaddition,theconcealmentornondisclosureofamaterialfactaffectingatransactionconstitutesfraudwhenitisthedutyofapartyhavingknowledgeofthefactstodisclosethemtotheotherparty. Id . Lonningv.JimWalterHomes,Inc ., "H 725S.W.2d682,685(Tenn.App.1986).Generallyspeaking,adutytodisclosefacts,otherwiseconcealedornotdisclosed,existsinthreesituations:   ` 1.8 Wherethereisapreviousdefinitefiduciary + ' relationbetweentheparties.   Л   ` 2.8 Whereitappearsoneoreachoftheparties |-,#* tothecontractexpresslyreposesatrustandconfidenceintheother.   Л   ` 3.8 Wherethecontractortransactionis 0|&. intrinsicallyfiduciaryandcallsforperfectgoodfaith.Thecontractofinsuranceisanexampleofthisclass.   ̛ Justicev.AndersonCounty ,955S.W.2d613,616617(Tenn.App. 6H,5 1997)(quotingfrom InDomesticSewingMachineCo.v.Jackson ,83 `8.7 Tenn.418(Tenn.1885)). (:/9 Ї   ` Intheinstantcase,allthreedefendantsWeems,Gamble,andMTMCdeny,throughtheiraffidavitsandotherdocuments,thattheypossessedanyintenttomisrepresentanyfacttoLongorthattheyhadknowledgethatanyrepresentationmadebythemwasfalse.Indeed,thedefendantspresentevidencethatalloftherepresentationsmadebythemontheirchecksand H  otherdocumentsrelatedtothevarioussaleswerepromptedby0 the0 Ledfordsdirections.LongdoesnotprovideanyspecificfactsϜshowingthatthedefendantsknewthatLedfordsdirectionstothemwerepartofhisschemetodefraudLong.8  #  12      ׀Thenonmoving P partyhastheburdenofshowingthatagenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat211.Whilethereappeartobe P factualdisputesregardingthecustomaryandusualpracticesoftheautomobileindustry,wedonotfindthatthesefactsareϜmaterialtoLongsclaimoffraud. Amaterialfacthasbeendefinedasafactthatmustbedecidedinordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected. %  М Suddathv.Parks, 914S.W.2d910,913(Tenn.App.1995)(quoting &x" М Byrd, 󛀜847S.W.2dat211.Accordingly,wefindthatLonghas (@$ providednoevidencetoestablishthatamaterialfactualissue X* & existsontheelementofintenttomisrepresentinformation,orϜwithrespecttothedefendantsknowledgeofthefalsityoftheirrepresentations.   ` XXXXLongclaimsthatthefraudulentactionsofLedford  shouldbeimputedtoWeems,Gamble,andMTMCbecauseofthedefendantsknowledgeoftheusualandcustomarypracticesoftheϜautomobileindustry.Wearenotpersuadedbythisargument.TherearesimplynofactsbeforeusdemonstratingthattheusualandcustomarypracticesoftheautomobileindustryweresuchastoputthedefendantsonnoticethatLedfordwasactinginafraudulentmanner.Thefactthatageneralsalesmanagerofanautomobiledealershipdirectsacustomertomakeoutacheckinamannerthatdoesnotcoincidewiththecustomarypracticeoftheindustrydoesnot,inandofitself,putthatcustomeronnoticethatthegeneralsalesmanagerisactinginafraudulentmanner,especiallywhenthetransaction,asdirectedbythatgeneralsalesmanager,isnotfraudulentonitsface.Here,thecustomersdidastheyweredirectedbyLongschiefsalesman,whosedirectionswerereasonable,givenhisexplanationsforthosedirections.TherewasnothingaboutthosedirectionstoputthepurchasersonnoticethatLedfordwasactingfraudulently.Itisnotenoughinthiscasetoshowthatthetransactionswerenothandledinthecustomarymanner;itisnecessarytoshowthatthemannerinwhichtheywerehandledreasonablyshouldhaveputthepurchasersonnoticethatLedfordwasactingfraudulently.SuchashowingisrequiredinordertoovercomethefactspresentedbythepurchasersshowingthatthepurchasershadnoknowledgeofLedfordsillegalactivity.Longsproofsimplydoesnotmakeoutagenuineissueofmaterial X:0: factastowhetherthepurchaserskneworshouldreasonablyhaveknownthatLedfordwasengagedinfraudulentactivity.#XXXXc#ԛ      ` XXXXLonghasnotadvancedanyevidencethatWeems,Gamble, H orMTMCwereinafiduciaryrelationship,oroneoftrustandϜconfidence,withLong.Furthermore,LonghasnotpresentedanydirectandmaterialevidencethatthetransactionsatissuewerenottransactionsatarmslengthbetweenLedford,ontheonehand,andWeems,Gamble,andMTMContheother.#XXXXMk#ԛIneachandevery @  transactionatissueinthiscase,thesalespricewasnegotiatedandagreeduponbytheparties,andpaidbythedefendants.Ledford,asGeneralSalesManager,oranotherLongemployee,gavespecificinstructionstoWeemsandMTMCastohowtheirchecksweretobemadeout.WedonotfindanybasisinlawtoestablishthatWeems,Gamble,andMTMChadadutytodetectanddisclosetoLongthefraudulentactivityofLedford.Furthermore,evenifapartyhasadutytodisclose,itcannotbeexpectedtodisclosefraudulentactivityofwhichitisnotaware.Thereisabsolutelynoevidenceinthiscasereflectingfraudbyconcealmentornondisclosure.Alloftheevidenceistothecontrary.   ` ThedefendantsfilingsnegateessentialelementsofLongsfraudclaim.Longsresponsesdonotmakeoutagenuineissueofmaterialfactprecludingagrantofsummaryjudgment.@B.ConspiracytoDefraud `5+4    ` Toprevailonaclaimforconspiracytodefraud,Longmustestablishthefollowingelements: 9@/9 Ї  8 ` [a] conspiracytodefraudonthepartoftwoormorepersonsmeansacommonpurpose,supportedbyaconcertedactiontodefraud,thateachhastheintenttodoit,andthatitiscommontoeachofthem,andthateachhastheunderstandingthattheotherhasthatpurpose. ` `   Pusserv.Gordon ,684S.W.2d639,642(Tenn.App.1985),(quoting t   Dalev.ThomasH.TempleCo. ,208S.W.2d344,35354(Tenn. <  М1948)).Further,conspiracy,withoutproofoffraud,isnotacauseofaction. Pusser ,684S.W.2dat642.      ` Aswehavepreviouslyexplained,therecordcontainsuncontrovertedevidencebywhichWeems,Gamble,andMTMCaffirmativelynegatedessentialelementsoftheclaimoftheirparticipationinfraud.Therefore,theclaimofconspiracytodefrauddoesnotlie.ThetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofWeems,GambleandMTMConthisclaimwasappropriate.@#C.Conversion '\# ̛̜   ` Tobeliableforconversion,adefendant needonlyhaveanintenttoexercisedominionandcontroloverthepropertythatisinfactinconsistentwiththeplaintiffsrights,anddoso. MammothCaveProductionCreditAssnv.Oldham ,569S.W.2d 0%- 833,836(Tenn.App.1977).Intheinstantcase,theundisputedfactsreflectthatthepurchaserstookpossessionofthevehiclesthroughtransactionsinvolvingthetopsalesofficialofLong.) T) * t* hereisnoevidenceofanyintenttoexercisedominionandcontroloverthevehiclesinamannerinconsistentwithLongsrights, id .;onthecontrary,thedefendantsexerciseddominion :/9 andcontroloverthevehiclesinamannerthatwasconsistentwiththevarioussalestransactionsenteredintowithLong,asrepresentedbyLedford.Theuncontradictedfactsnegateconversion.@<< D.GrossNegligence H     ` Toprevailonaclaimforgrossnegligence,LongmustestablishthatthetransactionsinwhichWeems,Gamble,andMTMCparticipatedwithLedfordconstitute negligentact[s]donewithutterunconcernforthesafetyofothers,or[acts]donewithsucharecklessdisregardfortherightsofothersthataconsciousindifferencetoconsequencesisimpliedinlaw. Odum h v.Haynes ,494S.W.2d795,807(Tenn.App.1972).See InterCity 0 TruckingCo.v.Daniels ,178S.W.2d756(Tenn.1944); / Stagnerv./ Crai, + + , - gv.   Stagner- . g. ,19S.W.2d234(Tenn.1929). "p    ` LongcontendsthatWeems,GambleandMTMCactedwithrecklessdisregardforthetruthregardingtheownershipofthevehicleswhentheyreliedonrepresentationsmadebyLedford.However,Longhassetforthnospecificfactssupportingaclaimforgrossnegligence.Inhisaffidavit,NelsonLongcontendsthatvariouscircumstancessurroundingmanyofthetransactionswere veryunusualandsuspect.Hecitesexamplessuchasleavingthepayeeblankononecheck;makingcheckspayabledirectlytototelots;buyingcarsfromemployees,individually;buyingdemonstratorcars;makingcheckspayabletoindividualtradeincustomers;andothers.  h8.7    ` However,foreachcircumstancecitedbyNelsonLongin hisaffidavit,Weems,GambleandMTMCprovideevidencethattheyactedatthespecificdirectionofLongsGeneralSalesManager.ϜNelsonLongsaffidavitdoesnotdisputethis.Inallcases,vehicleswereinspectedanddeliveredtoWeems,GambleandMTMCbyLedfordatthebusinesspremisesofLong,whereNelsonLong,Ϝwaspresentonafulltimebasisandavailabletodiscussanytransactionorvehicle.Longwouldhaveusdecidethatthedefendantsparticipationinthosetransactions,atthedirectionofitsGeneralSalesManager,andatLongsplaceofbusinesswhereNelsonLongwasavailableonafulltimebasis,constitutesrecklessdisregardforLongsrights.Wedonotfindafactualpredicateforsuchafinding.TherecordcontainsuncontrovertedevidencethatthedefendantswerenotrecklessintheirdealingswithLedford.1 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 1 1 1  #  13      כLonghasnotsetforthmaterialfactsto !0 МestablishthatWeems,Gamble,orMTMCactedwithrecklessdisregardforLongsownershiprightsinthevehicles.ϜAccordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttothedefendantsWeems,GambleandMTMContheclaimofgrossnegligencewasappropriate./ / / / / / @#V.򛀀Conclusion @    Fortheforegoingreasons,weconcludethatWeems,GambleandMTMChavedemonstratedthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfact/ / ,and,further,thattheyareentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothecourtbelowforthecollectionofcostsassessedthere.Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantanditssurety.   `     h     ____________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________DonT.McMurray,J.