WPCS Nb[) AxWƬ2\=֭LD#@1D@A#FT'3:P& A%-;0)dќrL,0eK 5y>l3=gCAvA+I=3@Ef Dm<=<y>w)mXҗ&lG[L-PJpm^JelYdN\ih?8 /HQ̧68i@bG=g}"s\x F"nI{qKج? _D D9VF7pf/;b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz  _ %   0DwN1 EU8NbHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0PPPP B;; 0X D3 D-/ 0K\\ AS 0 0Dd AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0]kI+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+|΢ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU R$      2  +   _ Stonev.Hinds ,541S.W.2d598,599(Tenn.Ct.App.1976).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   ' R$      3  +   __T.C.A._Ԁ283105provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:    8 ` Thefollowingactionsshallbecommencedwithinthree(3)yearsfromtheaccruing 8 ofthecauseofaction:L` x` x @%***    8 ` (2)Actionsfor...conversionofpersonalproperty....  R$      1  +   __Pero_scomplaintwasfiledAugust29,1996;LouisInnscomplaintwasfiledAugust30,1996.(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8LLd d 8         0  %@ d(|3$ !.8LLd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8LLd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ad d8     _  98'4XXdd 8  @ x9INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#9x #Ԉ &   July9,2001Session L X5X9 #9XX5#PEROSSTEAKANDSPAGHETTIHOUSE,etal.v.ELIZABETHJEAN J HINKLELEE,etal.X5X9   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  ^ @@Nos.354196and354496DaleC.Workman,Judge  J FILEDOCTOBER8,2001 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200100254COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A         #9X5#X5X.9CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,dissenting. P   Icannotconcurinthemajoritysholdingthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriateinthese d consolidatedcases.Themajoritysholdingisbottomedonitsdeterminationthat,evenifthe P plaintiffscausesofactionaccruedin1995or1996(preJune1ofthatyear),thoseactionshadto < befiledbeforeJune1,1996,inordertoavoidthebarofthestatuteoflimitations.Ibelieve(1)that ( thedateoftheaccrualofthesecausesofactioniscritical;(2)that,baseduponthematerialnow  beforeus,thereisafactualdisputeastowhenthecausesofactionaccrued,withdatesin1992and  1995!andmaybedatesinothertimeframes!beingpossibilities;(3)that,assumingthetrieroffact  findsthatthecausesofactionaccruedlessthanthreeyearspriortotheplaintiffsfilingsoftheir  complaints, #  1      ׀theapplicablethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsis#9XX5#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5 #X5X9Ԁ283105(2000),withthe t  computationoftimeunderitbeingimpactedbythediscoveryrule, T #  2      ׀see PacificPropertiesv.Home `!  FederalBank,F.S.B. ,C/ANo.03A019410CH00393,1995WL59112,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App. L"! E.S.,filedFebruary14,1995);and(4)that,iftheforegoingassumptionturnsouttobetrue,these 8#" causesofactionarenottimebarred.Thecruxofmydisagreementwiththemajorityisthis: $$t# assumingthetrieroffactdetermines,underthediscoveryrule,thatthesubjectcausesofaction %` $ accruedin1995orlater,butpriortoJune1,1996,Idonotbelieve!asthemajoritydoes!that %L!% #9XX5c #X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5 #X5X9Ԁ473118(g)(1996),astatuteoflimitationsfirsteffectiveonJune1,1996,canbe &8"& constitutionallyappliedtothosecausesofactionsoastobarsuitsfiledonAugust29,1996and '$#' August30,1996. ($(  )$)E   BeforeIexpounduponmybeliefthatsummaryjudgmentisinappropriateinthesecases,I  wanttoexpressmyagreementwiththemajoritythat#9XX5I#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5]#X5X9Ԁ473118(g),beingapartoftheUCC,  shouldbeconstruedinharmonywiththedecisionsofthoseotherUCCjurisdictions!aclear  majority!whichhaveheldthatthediscoveryruleisnotimplicatedinananalysisinvolvingthis t particularstatuteoflimitations,absentfraudulentconcealmentonthepartofthedefendantasserting ` thelimitationsdefense.MydisagreementwiththemajorityasitpertainstothisstatuteisthatIdo L  notbelievethatitcanbeappliedtoacauseofactionthataccruedbeforeitseffectivedateofJune 8  1,1996. $ t   Generallyspeaking,theascertainmentofthedateoftheaccrualofacauseofactionisthe  L  firststepinanystatuteoflimitationsanalysis.Thisisbecause,againgenerallyspeaking,theperiod  8  oflimitationsdoesnotbegintorununtilthecauseofactionhasaccrued.See McCroskeyv.Bryant $  AirConditioningCo .,524S.W.2d487,491(Tenn.1975); Wyattv.ABestProdustsCo. ,924   S.W.2d98,103(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).     Wehavepreviouslyheldthat [t]hephrasefromtheaccruingofthecauseofaction,asset   forthin#9XX5#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5q#X5X9Ԁ283105, #  3      ׀meansfromthetimewhentheplaintiffkneworreasonablyshouldhave p knownthatacauseofactionexisted. PacificProperties ,1995WL59112at*4(citing Stonev. \ Hinds ,541S.W.2d598,599(Tenn.Ct.App.1976)).In PacificProperties ,weheldthatanalleged H conversionofacertificateofdepositwasgovernedbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsfor 4 conversionunder#9XX5#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5X#X5X9Ԁ283105andthattherewasadisputeintherecordastowhenthe  p plaintiffsmanagingpartner kneworreasonablyshouldhaveknownabouttheallegedconversion  \ andthatthedisputemeantitwasunclearastowhetherthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations,i.e., H #9XX5#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5<#X5X9Ԁ283105,#9XX5#X5X9hadexpiredbeforesuitwasbrought. Id .Becauseofthis,wereversedthetrial 4 courtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentandremandedforfurtherproceedings. Id .at*5.     Ifthetrieroffactintheinstantcaseacceptsastruethefactsunderlyingtheplaintiffstheory  ofthiscase,theaccrualofthecausesofaction,undertherationaleof PacificProperties ,didnot  occuruntil1995attheearliest.Inmyjudgment,areasonablejurycouldconcludethattheplaintiffs  quantumofknowledgepriorto1995wasnotsufficienttoputareasonablepersononnoticethat l therehadbeenaconversionbytheBank.Construingtheevidenceinthissummaryjudgment X  analysisaswemust!inthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiffs!Ifindagenuinedisputeasto D! whentheplaintiffskneworreasonablyshouldhaveknownabouttheallegedconversion. 0"    #l!   In1995through1996,butpriortoJune1,1996!duringwhichtimeframetheplaintiffs   causesofactionarguablyaccrued!theapplicablestatuteoflimitationswas#9XX5#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5W!#X5X9Ԁ283105.The  newstatute!#9XX5!#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5"#X5X9Ԁ473118(g)!whilepassedinJune,1995,wasnoteffectiveuntilJune1,  1996.Thus,iftheplaintiffscausesofactionaccruedin1995orin1996,butpriortoJune1,1996, t theyaccruedpriortotheeffectivedateofthenewstatute. `   Asageneralproposition,alitiganthasavestedrightinthestatuteoflimitationsineffectand 8  applicabletoitscauseofactiononthedatethatthecauseofactionaccrues.SeeTenn.Const.Art. $ t I,#9XX5h"#X5X9Ԁ#9XX5$#X5X9Ԁ20; Wattsv.PutnamCo .,525S.W.2d488,492(Tenn.1975); Wyatt ,924S.W.2dat103.  `   Themajorityreliesuponthecaseof PacificEasternCorp.v.GulfLifeHoldingCo. ,902  8  S.W.2d946(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),forthepropositionthatachangeintheapplicablestatuteof $  limitations thatshortensanexistingstatuteoflimitationscannotextinguishacauseofactionthat   hasalreadyaccruedwithoutgivingtheplaintiffareasonableopportunitytobringsuitafterthe   effectivedateofthenewstatute. Id .at956.WhileIagreethat PacificEasternCorp. standsfor   thisproposition,Idonotagreethattheprincipleenunciatedinthatcaseisimplicatedbythefacts   oftheinstantcase. p   Inthecasebeforeus,itiscleartomethatthenewstatute shortenedtheperiodof H limitations.Thisisbecausetheapplicableperiodwaschangedfromaspanofthreeyearswiththe 4 discoveryruletoathreeyearperiodwithoutthediscoveryrule.Aspertinenttomydissent,the  p changeintheperiodoflimitationsissignificantinatleasttworespects.First,thenewstatutedoes  \ notexpresslyprovidethattheaccrualofacauseofactionsubjecttoitstermswouldoccuratthetime H oftheconversionandnotwhentheconversionwasdiscoveredorshouldhavebeendiscovered.In 4 fact,itwasnotuntilthemajorityinterpretedthestatuteinthemorerestrictivemannerinthisvery   case!and,again,Iagreewiththatinterpretation!thatonewasputonnoticethattherehadbeen,   ineffect,ashorteningoftheperiodwithinwhichanaggrievedpartycouldfilesuit.    Thesecondimportantaspectofthenewstatuteisthatthereisnoexpressstatementinthe  statuteputtingapersononnoticethattheclaimanthasacertainperiodoftimetobringsuitafterthe l effectivedateofthenewstatuteoflimitations.Idonotbelievetheoneyeardelayintheeffective X  dateofthestatutesatisfiestherequirementthatbeforeanewshortenedperiodoflimitationscanbe D! appliedtoanaccruedcauseofaction,thenewstatutemustputaclaimantonnoticethattheclaimant 0"  hasaspecifiedperiodoftimewithinwhichtofilesuit.Inmyjudgment,thisrequirementcouldhave #l! beenmet!butwasnot!hadthenewstatuteprovidedthatallcausesofactionaccruingpriortothe $X" effectivedateofthestatutehadtobefiledonorbeforeareasonablespecifieddateinthefuture.In $D # myjudgment,thisisthetypeofprovisioncontemplatedbycasessuchas PacificEasternCorp.  %0!$   Iwouldreversethegrantofsummaryjudgmentandremandforfurtherproceedings.I '#& believeweshouldletthejurydecidethecriticalfactsimpactingtheaccrualissue.Regardlessofhow (#' thejuryresolvesthisissue,Ibelievetheapplicableperiodoflimitationsis#9XX5,%#X5X9T.C.A.#9XX5)3#X5X9Ԁ283105since )$( nooneinthiscasecontendsthatthecausesofactionbarredbythetrialcourtsjudgmentaccruedon |*%) orafterJune1,1996. h+&* #9XX5v3#  X5X9   `     h     _______________________________ t    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE