ÿWPC Et‰êûqÍYüL%òšXErGS¯2º2¢¼.G6p1YØN¥‡¢»¶ Z¤ËJé_™k½Bç½^\ÿcKáÝ9‚Ê‚r¥ZÂ⪠éy‚à{é5Ô,ÊûŽ‘}hxW~~g’È®‘Þt¾„¿Ïc{ˆ‡jiG™Jßkñx…ÂJIj¾p¯ŒÖÑ:ugé ¢,¿âRœ¡’ƒ ëc$¡~·Âq¥CHv¸!,d›±Äaôàk19½7¼R½1~Ãf—)^“~?í¤_9Gå‰2b°k#Ãí5)=ób,:‹´áO‚B=Ø6›=eýNiux×Ç¿áó=¥ÁÜ!¬öëÀvY9îw{ûó ìpÅT¡P-!÷©gÍùþß;2÷eE–©®èÍ1à&Óò:ÍŠ¥—­vXÏL ð-Ee¸“¶ßÄ&=©£xµ|4¥ìšbÐ!Wo¯×>’irN÷é^ÛDçÑ^à×3þ’«±É`||— 3JÖƒÀpÌàá÷‚Y„<3'…ÉÆ<ª½.ŒZ‰r·ío˜>8{ ðó•JÐVÜñ3L¢Mê«Îø»Ëh¹¸T¹_Ù_fî͸¸oA$zÄúu #Éšb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;= 1EEÒ 72Ô 1u 72{ 0 c­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­b 0ë B 0¤  D3Ä D-÷ 0K$$ ASoÆÂ 0¤ˆ 0D, A«p˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 »nkI+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (× CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2wì$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€QÜ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X%ÌX»»Ô d(|3Î$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€QÜ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Î$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€QÜ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F¼»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ¼¯w»» »ÔÑ8€%ÜXXdê»»d 8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@&& ìàJuly€9,€2001€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔÌò òÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàëž#ÔÓ  ÓPEROððS€STEAK€AND€SPAGHETTI€HOUSE€and€LOUIS€INN€v.Ð Ò" ÐELIZABETH€JEAN€HINKLE€LEE€and€FIRST€AMERICAN€NATIONALÐ æ 6 ÐBANK€and€FIRST€TENNESSEE€BANK€NATIONAL€ASSOCIATIONòòóóÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔó óÐ ú J ÐÓäÓÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@bb ìàNos.€3„541„96€and€3„544„96€€€€€€Hon.€Dale€C.€Workman,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ æ 6  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€OCTOBER€8,€2001Ð ¾  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2001„00254„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÌÌPlaintiffsðð€action€against€defendant€Bank€was€dismissed€by€the€Trial€Court€on€the€ground€the€statuteÐ d´ Ðof€limitation,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð47„3„118(g)€had€run.€€On€appeal,€we€affirm.Ð P  ÐÌÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàë»#ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÌHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#† ¼¯w»à Xàë?#ÔÔ‡ XàëX. ¼¯wÔ,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,Ô#† ¼¯w»à Xàë#ÔÔ‡ XàëX. ¼¯wÔÐ Ø( ÐJ.óó,€joinedÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàë“#ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔ,€and€òòÔ#† ¼¯w»à Xàë÷#ÔÔ‡ XàëX. ¼¯wÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,óó€dissented€and€filed€an€opinion.€òòÔ#† ¼¯w»à XàëB#ÔÔ‡ XàëX. ¼¯wÔóó.Ð Ä ÐÌJames€S.€Tipton,€Jr.,€and€W.€Morris€Kizer,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Plaintiffs„Appellants,€PeroððsÐ œì ÐSteak€and€Spaghetti€House€and€Louis€Inn.Ð ˆØ ÐÌStephen€G.€Anderson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Defendant„Appellee,€First€Tennessee€Bank€NationalÐ `!°  ÐAssociation.Ð L"œ! ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#† ¼¯w»X XàëÆ#ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wԈРü%L!% ÐÌòòÌóóÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàë’ #ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€action€against€First€Tennessee€Bank€National€Association€(ð ðBankðð)€wasÐ ¬)ü$) Ðheld€to€be€time„barred€by€the€Trial€Judge€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð47„3„118.€€Plaintiffs€haveÐ ˜*è%* Ðappealed€to€this€Court.Ð „+Ô&+ ÐÌà  àà ` àPeroððs€Steak€and€Spaghetti€House€and€Louis€Inn€are€businesses€located€in€Knoxville,Ð \-¬(-ý ÐTennessee,€operated€as€general€partnerships.€€The€partners€of€the€two€businesses€engaged€ElmerÐ ° ÐHinkle,€as€their€general€bookkeeper€to€handle€Louis€Inn€and€Peroððs€general€bookkeeping,€accountingÐ œì Ðand€tax€preparation.€€Hinkle€did€business€under€the€name€of€Hinkle€&€Hinkle,€a€family€businessÐ ˆØ Ðincluding€his€wife€and€daughter,€Elizabeth€Hinkle€Lee€(ð ðLeeðð).€€Beginning€in€1985,€Lee€handled€allÐ tÄ Ðof€the€work€for€Peroððs€and€Louis€Inn.€€Ð `° Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àBetween€1988€and€1995,€Peroððs€Steak€and€Spaghetti€House€wrote€54€checks€for€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpayment€of€taxes€and€Louis€Inn€wrote€86€checks€for€the€payment€of€taxes.€€Peroððs€checks€were€drawnÐ $ t Ðon€First€American€Bank,€where€Peroððs€did€its€banking.€€The€Louis€Inn€checks€were€drawn€on€FirstÐ  ` ÐTennessee€Bank.€€All€140€checks€were€made€payable€to€First€Tennessee.€€All€checks€were€given€toÐ ü L  ÐDefendant€Lee€by€Peroððs€or€Louis€Inn€in€order€for€her€to€present€them€to€the€Bank.€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àSome€of€the€140€checks€were€presented€for€payment€to€the€IRS€accompanied€by€anÐ À  ÐIRS€payment€coupon.€€These€checks€and€coupons€were€set€aside€by€the€Bank€with€similar€depositsÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€other€employers€and€would€be€deposited€in€the€Bankððs€Treasury,€Tax€and€Liability€account.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€Bank€would€then€transmit€monies€to€the€IRS€with€a€tape€identifying€the€portion€to€be€creditedÐ „Ô  Ðto€each€employerððs€identification€number.€Ð pÀ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àNot€all€of€the€checks€were€handled€in€the€stated€manner.€€Sometimes,€Lee€cashed€theÐ H˜ Ðchecks€and€used€some€or€all€of€the€proceeds€to€buy€cashierððs€checks€payable€to€the€state€or€the€IRS.€Ð 4„ ÐSometimes€she€deposited€the€checks€in€an€account€called€the€Hinkle€&€Hinkle€Tax€Account.€€LeeÐ  p Ðwould€then€draw€checks€on€the€Hinkle€Account€to€pay€taxes€owed€by€Peroððs€and€Louis€Inn.Ð  \ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€1991,€Peroððs€was€audited€by€the€IRS.€€As€a€result€of€that€audit,€Peroððs€was€requiredÐ ä4 Ðto€pay€approximately€$39,000.00€in€back€taxes,€interest€and€penalties.€€On€or€about€February€3,€1992,Ð Ð  ÐPeroððs€received€another€notice€from€the€IRS€stating€that€no€tax€deposits€were€received€during€theÐ ¼  Ðfourth€quarter€of€1990,€but€four€checks€had€been€written€by€Peroððs€in€the€fourth€quarter€of€1990€eachÐ ¨ø Ðfor€the€amount€of€$9,500.00,€or€a€total€of€$38,000.00.Ð ”ä Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Complaint€against€First€Tennessee€Bank€alleged€that€the€Bank€had€engaged€inÐ l¼ Ða€joint€conversion€with€Lee,€allowing€her€to€cash€or€deposit€a€number€of€checks€for€her€own€credit.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àEventually,€a€trial€ensued€over€this€dispute€before€a€jury,€and€jury€verdicts€wereÐ 0"€  Ðreturned€for€the€plaintiff€which€were€ultimately€set€aside€by€the€Trial€Judge€and€a€new€trial€grantedÐ #l! Ðbefore€another€Judge.€€On€August€18,€2000,€the€Bank€filed€a€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€JudgmentÐ $X" Ðbased€upon€its€affirmative€defense,€i.e.,€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€plaintiffs€also€filed€a€jointÐ ô$D # ÐMotion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment.€€Acting€on€the€Motions,€the€Trial€Court€granted€the€BankððsÐ à%0!$ ÐMotion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment,€but€denied€plaintiffsðð€Motion.€€In€light€of€this€decision,€thereÐ Ì&"% Ðremained€no€dispute€regarding€the€claims€of€plaintiffs€not€time„barred€by€the€Courtððs€holding,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€stipulation€of€the€amount€of€those€claims,€together€with€the€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðwere€reflected€in€the€Courtððs€Order€and€Final€Judgment€of€October€5,€2000.Ð )à$( Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àOur€review€of€summary€judgments€involves€purely€a€question€of€law,€with€noÐ h+¸&* Ðpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€we€are€required€to€review€the€recordÐ ° Ðto€determine€if€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòStaples€v.€C.B.L.€&Ð œì ÐAssociates,€Inc.,óó€15€S.W.2d€83€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àPrior€to€1996,€the€statute€of€limitations€on€actions€for€conversion€of€negotiableÐ `° Ðinstruments€was€not€a€separate€statute,€but€rather€was€governed€by€the€statute€of€limitations€forÐ L œ Ðproperty€tort€actions.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€following€actions€shall€be€commenced€within€three€(3)€years€from€the€accruingÐ  ` Ðof€the€cause€of€action:€€.€.€.€(2)€Actions€for€the€detention€or€conversion€of€personalÐ ü L  Ðproperty.Ðè 8 ` (#` (# ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28-3-105.€€òòSee€McConnico€v.€Third€Natððl€Bankóó,€499€S.W.2d€874,€891€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð1973)€(applying€general€limitation€period€for€conversion€of€personal€property€ð ðabsent€an€appropriateÐ ¬ü  Ðlimitation€in€the€Uniform€Commercial€Codeðð).€€In€applying€this€general€limitation€provision€toÐ ˜è  Ðcauses€of€action€for€the€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments,€this€Court€employed€the€discovery€ruleÐ „Ô  Ðand€held€that€the€statute€of€limitations€runs€from€ð ðthe€time€when€the€plaintiff€knew€or€reasonablyÐ pÀ Ðshould€have€known€that€a€cause€of€action€existed.ðð€€òòPacific€Properties€v.€Home€Federal€Bankóó,€1995Ð \¬ ÐWL€59112,€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòStone€v.€Hindsóó,€541€S.W.2d€598,€599€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð H˜ Ð1976).€€Ð 4„ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€òòPacific€Propertiesóó€decision,€the€legislature€adopted€ðð€47-3-118(g)€in€JuneÐ  \ Ðof€1995,€establishing€a€specific€statute€of€limitations€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments€andÐ øH Ðplacing€that€statute€within€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€section€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðstatute€became€effective€on€June€1,€1996€and€provides:Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à(g)€€Unless€governed€by€other€law€regarding€claims€for€indemnity€or€contribution,€anÐ ¨ø Ðaction€(i)€for€the€conversion€or€an€instrument,€for€money€had€and€received,€or€likeÐ ”ä Ðaction€based€on€conversion,€(ii)€for€breach€of€warranty,€or€(iii)€to€enforce€anÐ €Ð Ðobligation,€duty,€or€right€arising€under€this€chapter€and€not€governed€by€this€sectionÐ l¼ Ðmust€be€commenced€within€three€(3)€years€after€the€[cause€of€action]€accrues.ÐX ¨` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47-3-118.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÓ9(Óà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€ðð€118(g)€does€not€apply€because€it€became€effective€after€theirÐ $X" Ðcause€of€action€accrued.€€They€argue€that€their€action€accrued€in€March€of€1996,€after€they€pursuedÐ ô$D # Ðan€investigation€of€an€IRS€levy€on€their€bank€account,€which€had€required€First€Tennessee€Bank€toÐ à%0!$ Ðremit€to€the€IRS€$24,386.48€from€the€accounts€of€Louis€Inn€at€the€Bank,€for€an€alleged€underpaymentÐ Ì&"% Ðof€federal€payroll€taxes.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€even€if€the€discovery€rule€was€applicable€(which€the€CourtÐ )à$( Ðfound€did€not€apply),€the€plaintiffsðð€action€would€still€be€time„barred€because€they€knew€or€hadÐ |*Ì%) Ðreason€to€know€of€the€conversion€of€the€checks€by€February€of€1992,€and€the€action€was€not€broughtÐ h+¸&* Ðuntil€August€of€1996.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€upon€receiving€the€notice€from€the€IRS€on€February€3,€1992,€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthey€believed€Lee,€to€whom€they€gave€their€checks,€when€she€told€them€that€a€mistake€had€been€madeÐ tÄ Ðand€that€no€additional€taxes€were€actually€owed,€and€contend€that€they€did€not€discover€theÐ `° Ðconversion€of€the€checks€then,€because€of€their€reliance€upon€their€long„standing€professionalÐ L œ Ðrelationship€with€Lee.€€They€claim€that€they€only€became€aware€of€the€conversion€after€the€IRSÐ 8 ˆ Ðplaced€a€levy€on€their€bank€account€with€the€Bank€in€1995.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àWhere€the€discovery€rule€is€applicable,€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€whenÐ ü L  Ðplaintiff€knows€or€in€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence€should€know,€that€an€injury€has€beenÐ è 8  Ðsustained€as€a€result€of€wrongful€or€tortious€conduct€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeò ò€ó óShadrick€v.€Cokeróó,€963Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€726,€733€(Tenn.€1998).€The€plaintiff€is€deemed€to€have€discovered€the€right€of€action€if€heÐ À  Ðis€aware€of€facts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€an€injury€as€aÐ ¬ü  Ðresult€of€wrongful€conduct.€€òòSee€Roe€v.€Jeffersonóó,€875€S.W.2d€653,€657€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àAgainst€the€backdrop€of€an€IRS€audit€in€1991€where€plaintiffs€were€required€to€payÐ pÀ Ðback€taxes,€interest€and€penalties,€the€February€3,€1992€notice€to€plaintiffs€stating€that€no€depositsÐ \¬ Ðwere€made€for€the€fourth€quarter€of€1990€would€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€either€theÐ H˜ ÐBank€had€not€made€payment€to€the€IRS€or€Lee€had€not€made€the€deposits.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Judge€held€the€discovery€rule€does€not€apply,€but€plaintiffs€argue€thatÐ  \ Ððð118(g)€does€not€apply€because€it€became€effective€after€their€cause€of€action€accrued.€€However,Ð øH Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€codified€at€ðð47„3„118€does€not€shorten€any€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€Ð ä4 ÐAt€all€relevant€times€actions€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments€must€have€been€brought€withinÐ Ð  Ðthree€years€of€the€accrual€of€the€cause€of€action.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€discovery€rule€is€an€equitable€exception€to€the€general€rule€that€the€statute€ofÐ ”ä Ðlimitations€begins€to€run€as€soon€as€the€underlying€cause€of€action€accrues.€€òòóó€òòSeeò òó óóó€òòMenichini€v.€Grantóó,Ð €Ð Ð995€F.2d€1224,€1229€(3d€Cir.€1993);€òòPalmer€Mfg.€and€Supply,€Inc.€v.€BancOhio€Natððl€Bankóó,€637Ð l¼ ÐN.E.2d€386,€389„91€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1994).€€òòAlso€seeóó€òòTeeters€v.€Curreyóó,€518€S.W.2d€512,€517€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð1974)€(referring€to€the€discovery€rule€as€an€ð ðequitable€doctrineðð.€€The€overwhelming€weight€ofÐ D!” Ðauthority€is€to€the€effect€that€the€discovery€rule€does€not€apply€to€negotiable€instrument€theft.€€òòSee,Ð 0"€  Ðe.g.,€Menichinióó;òò€Kuwait€Airways€Corp.€v.€American€Security€Bankóó,€890€F.2d€456,€461„63€(D.C.€Cir.Ð #l! Ð1989);òòò ò€ó óStefano€v.€First€Union€Natððl€Bank€of€Virginiaóó,€981€F.Supp.€417,€421€(E.D.€Va.€1997);òòò òÐ $X" Ðó óHaddadððs€of€Illinois,€Inc.€v.€Credit€Union€1€Credit€Unionóó,€678€N.E.2d€322„325„26€(Ill.€App.€Ct.Ð ô$D # Ð1997);€òòHusker€News€Co.€v.€Mahaska€State€Bankóó,€460€N.W.2d€476,€477„78€(Iowa€1990);òòò ò€ó óInsuranceÐ à%0!$ ÐCo.€of€North€America€v.€Manufacturers€Bank€of€Southfieldóó,€338€N.W.2d€214,€216€(Mich€Ct.€App.Ð Ì&"% Ð1983);€òòSmith€v.€Franklin€Custodian€Funds,€Incò ò.ó óóó,€726€So.2d€144,€148€(Miss.€1998);òòò ò€ó óGerber€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐManufacturers€Hanover€Trust€Co.óó,€315€N.Y.S.2d€601,€603€(N.Y.€Civ.€Ct.€1970);òòò ò€ó óPalmer€Mfg.€andÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSupply,€Inc.€v.€BancOhio€Natððl€Bankóó,€637€N.E.2d€386,€389„91€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòFuscellaro€v.Ð )à$( ÐIndustrial€Natððl€Corpò ò.ó óóó,€368€A.2d€1227,€1231€(R.I.€1977);òòò ò€ó óWang€v.€Farmers€State€Bank€of€Winneróó,Ð |*Ì%) Ð447€N.W.2d€516,€518€(S.D.€1989)òòò ò;€ó óLyco€v.€Acquisition€1984,€L.P.€v.€The€First€Natððl€Bank€ofò òÐ h+¸&* Ðó óAmarilloóó,€860€S.W.2d€117,€119€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Ð ° Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWhere€a€party€not€engaging€in€fraudulent€concealment€asserts€the€statute€ofÐ ˆØ Ðlimitations€defense,€most€courts€have€refused€to€apply€the€discovery€rule€to€negotiable€instruments,Ð tÄ Ðfinding€it€contrary€to€UCC€policies€of€finality€and€negotiability.€€See€e.g.€òòPalmer€Mfg.€and€Supply,Ð `° ÐInc.€v.€BancOhio€Natððl€Bankóó,€637€N.E.2d€386,€389„91€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1994).€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€adopting€the€UCC€in€this€State,€the€Legislature€codified€the€purposes€and€policyÐ $ t Ðof€the€Code:Ð  ` ÐÌÓ€ (× 83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£)AÝÔ2× Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýto€simplify,€clarify€and€modernize€the€law€governing€commercialÐ è 8  Ðtransactions;݃3£)AvAÝŒÐÔ$ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£}BÝÔ2× Ô(Ú  ÚbÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýto€permit€the€continued€expansion€of€commercial€practice€through€custom,Ð ¬ü  Ðusage€and€agreement€of€the€parties;€and݃3£}BÊBÝŒÐ˜è ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚3£ôCÝÔ2× Ô(Ú  ÚcÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  Ýto€make€uniform€the€law€among€the€various€jurisdictions.݃3£ôCADÝŒÐpÀ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47-1-102(2).€Ð H˜ ÐÓEÓà  àà ` àStatutory€uniformity€is€a€principle€to€be€applied€in€construing€the€UCC€in€Tennessee.€Ð  p ÐòòWakefield€v.€Crawleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€442,€450€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€be€in€conformity€with€other€jurisdictions,€Tennessee€should€likewise€abandon€theÐ ä4 Ðuse€of€the€discovery€rule€in€actions€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments€absent€fraudulentÐ Ð  Ðconcealment€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€asserting€the€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€However,Ð ¼  Ðplaintiffs€argue€that€they€should€not€be€prevented€from€relying€upon€the€discovery€rule€that€wasÐ ¨ø Ðapplied€in€òòPacific€Propertiesóó€prior€to€the€codification€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€the€U.C.C.€Ô#† ¼¯w»X Xàëò #ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔÐ ”ä ÐWhile€the€statute€of€limitations€itself€remained€at€three€years,€the€effect€of€the€new€statute€is€toÐ €Ð Ðeliminate€the€discovery€rule€from€cases€of€conversions€of€negotiable€instruments.€€This,€in€turn,Ð l¼ Ðeffectively€limits€the€time€in€which€a€person€has€to€bring€a€claim€for€conversion.€€However,€it€is€wellÐ X ¨ Ðestablished€that€a€newly€effective€statute€of€limitations€cannot€extinguish€a€cause€of€action€that€hasÐ D!” Ðalready€accrued,€without€giving€the€plaintiff€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€bring€suit€after€the€changes.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòSee€Pacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2d€946,€956€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Legislature€adopted€the€statute€of€limitations€provision€for€conversion€ofÐ ô$D # Ðnegotiable€instruments€in€June€of€1995,€but€delayed€its€effective€date€until€June€1,€1996.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ à%0!$ ÐAnn.€ðð47„3„118.€€Assuming€without€deciding€that€plaintiffs€had€a€constitutionally€vested€right€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðbenefit€of€the€discovery€rule,€plaintiffs€concede€they€learned€of€the€injurious€transactions€after€theÐ ¸'#& ÐIRS€levied€on€their€bank€account€in€1995€and€before€the€statute€became€effective.€€Yet€they€did€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbring€an€action€against€the€Bank€during€the€year€in€which€the€Legislature€delayed€the€effective€dateÐ )à$( Ðof€the€statute€and€give€no€valid€reason€why€they€waited€until€August€29,€1996€to€bring€this€action,Ð |*Ì%) Ðafter€the€statute€had€become€effective.€€As€we€said€in€òòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Co.,€óó902Ð h+¸&* ÐS.W.2d€946€(Tenn.€App.€1995):Ð ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à[a]n€amendment€that€shortens€an€existing€statute€of€limitations€cannot€extinguish€aÐ ˆØ Ðcause€of€action€that€has€already€accrued€without€giving€the€plaintiff€a€reasonableÐ tÄ Ðopportunity€to€bring€suit€after€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment.€€(CitationsÐ `° Ðomitted).ÐL œ` (#` (# ÐÌòòId.€óó956.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Legislature€gave€such€parties€a€reasonable€time€to€bring€their€action,€i.e.,€one€yearÐ ü L  Ðfrom€the€passage€of€the€statute€before€it€became€effective.€€Accordingly,€indulging€the€plaintiffsððÐ è 8  Ðright€to€apply€the€discovery€rule,€they€had€a€reasonable€time€to€bring€their€action,€which€they€failedÐ Ô$  Ðto€do€before€the€statute€became€effective.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€fraudulent€concealment€doctrine€tolled€the€statute€ofÐ ˜è  Ðlimitations€regardless€of€whether€they€should€have€discovered€their€cause€of€action,€or€not.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòShadrick€v.€Cokerò ò,ó óóó€963€S.W.2d€726€(Tenn.€1998),€the€Supreme€Court€addressedÐ \¬ Ðthe€issue€of€fraudulent€concealment:€€Ð H˜ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àTo€establish€fraudulent€concealment,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€(1)€that€the€defendantÐ  p Ðtook€affirmative€action€to€conceal€the€cause€of€action€or€remained€silent€and€failedÐ  \ Ðto€disclose€material€facts€despite€a€duty€to€do€so€and,€(2)€the€plaintiff€could€not€haveÐ øH Ðdiscovered€the€cause€of€action€despite€exercising€reasonable€care€and€diligence.€Ðä4` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à.€.€.€Ð¼ ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àThe€third€essential€element€of€fraudulent€concealment€is€knowledge€on€theÐ ”ä Ðpart€of€the€defendant€of€the€facts€giving€rise€to€the€cause€of€action.€€In€other€words,Ð €Ð Ðthe€defendant€must€be€aware€of€the€wrong.Ðl¼` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à.€.€.€ÐD!”` (#` (# Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àThe€fourth€and€final€essential€element€of€fraudulent€concealment€is€aÐ #l! Ðconcealment€of€material€information€from€the€plaintiff.€€Concealment€ð ðmay€consistÐ $X" Ðof€withholding€information€or€making€use€of€some€device€to€misleadðð€the€plaintiffÐ ô$D # Ðin€order€to€exclude€suspicion€or€prevent€inquiry.€Ðà%0!$` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€hold€that€the€plaintiffs€have€neither€pled€nor€offered€evidence€€to€establish€a€primaÐ ¸'#& Ðfacie€case€of€fraudulent€concealment.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court,€and€remand€with€the€cost€of€the€appealÐ |*Ì%) Ðassessed€to€plaintiffs€Peroððs€Steak€and€Spaghetti€House€and€Louis€Inn.Ð h+¸&* ЇÌÌÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàë¿H#ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð tÄ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð `° ÐóóÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàëp\#ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#† ¼¯w»X Xàë¿]#ÔÔ‡ XàëX» ¼¯wÔ