ÿWPC€' 9UB. %p®v 0t$ 0Ř 0\] 0¹ 0rF 0¸ D+E Æp 06 0=à 0 AQ 0¶Þ 0D”# Øãnó 0röU:hw@¢4âLöBLJ– 0Jž 0Tè B< 0^Y 0h· 0r 0|‘ 0†  0“ 1u# 0d˜üU*.ú5v~/ vÓ­!ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Í The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ<5Tÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓP††ÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔV!ÿÿ:footnote texfootnote textÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô`‰‰ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ(e2©Á$©©Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô~JôôôÔÔ€ô~Jôôô~JÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2©Á$££Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô~JôôôÔÔ€ô~Jôôô~JÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(e2©Á$¢¢Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô~JôôôÔÔ€ô~Jôôô~JÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý   Cþÿ<< cÿÿ(f(3Ì$¤¤Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ô~JôôôÔÔ€ô~Jôôô~JÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardHPPCL5G,,,,0nLLÎ3|x[&«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTomanTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(Jä$¡¡Ô€ô~4ôôôÔÔ€ô~4ôôô~4ÔÓ  Ó+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular Q&US& T&DU& îV&DW&DX&UY&DZ&U[&kj3#VC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô"#%&'()* ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4ÔContrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€we€conclude€that€Figlioððs€complaint€contained€sufficientlyÏspecific€allegations€to€state€a€cause€of€action€for€fraud.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòVancev.€Schulderóó,€547€S.W.2d€927,Ï931„32€(Tenn.€App.€1977);€òòPridemorev.€Cherryóó,€903€S.W.2d€705,€707„08€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ô€ÔÌ ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4ÔBecause€the€causes€of€action€alleged€by€Figlio€involved€two€discrete€acts,€rather€than€aÏcontinuous€act,€we€conclude€that€this€courtððs€recent€holding€in€òòWansleyv.€Refined€Metals€Corp.óó,ÏNo.02A01„9503„CV„00065,€1996€WL€502497€(Tenn.€App.€Sept.6,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.ÏJan.27,€1997),€does€not€bar€Figlioððs€action€for€conspiracy€against€Cherry.€€In€òòWansleyóó,€we€held€that,€whereÏð ða€plaintiff€learns€of€his€injuries€and€learns€of€the€causal€connection€to€the€defendantððs€conduct€andÏcontinues€to€be€subjected€to€such€conduct,ðð€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€the€plaintiffÏdiscovers€his€cause€of€action€and€not€when€the€plaintiffððs€exposure€to€the€tortious€conduct€ceases.€€òòIdóó.,Ïat*6.€€Here,€the€second€tort€alleged€by€Figlio,€the€conspiracy,€involved€different€conduct€and€a€differentÏtortfeasor€than€the€first€tort,€the€fraud.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€view€the€tortious€acts€alleged€in€this€case€toÏbe€a€ð ðcontinuing€tort.ðð€€òòSee€generallyóó€54€C.J.S.€òòLimitation€of€Actionsóó€ðð177€(1987).Ô€ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ ` p›XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€XÔÑ7€ÎXôôdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€4ÔÑ X Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌPRISM€PARTNERS,€L.P.,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€Davidson€Circuit€No.€95C„4342Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9703„CV„00103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMICHAEL€D.€FIGLIO,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant,à àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPRISM€PARTNERS,€L.P.à àà àà à)ÌLARRY€CHERRY,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óCounter„Defendant/à àò ò)Ìà àà àó óAppellee,€à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àó óThird€Party€Defendant/à àò ò)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àó óÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€BARBARA€N.€HAYNES,€JUDGEÌœ›Ìò òSTEVE€NORTHó óÌò òMARK€NORTHÌó óMadison,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌò òEDMUND€W.€TURNLEY,€IIIÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌò òRICHARD€M.€SMITHÌMANIER,€HEROD,€HOLLABAUGH€&€SMITHÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee,€Prism€Partners,€L.P.ÌÌœò òW.€LEE€CORBETTó ó›Ìœò òDAVID€F.€LEWISÌCORBETT,€CROCKETT€&€LECKRONEÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Third„Party€Defendant/Appellee,€Larry€CherryÌ›Ìò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PARTÌ&€REMANDEDÌœ›ÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó óœÓÓà àÌÑ7€XXdðôôdÈ7Ñà àIn›€this€unlawful€detainer€action,€Defendant€MichaelD.€Figlio€appeals€the€trialÏcourtððs€final€judgment€which€held€that€Plaintiff/Appellee€Prism€Partners,€L.P.,€had€freeÏand€clear€title€to€the€subject€property,€ordered€Figlio€to€vacate€the€subject€property,€andÏdismissed€Figlioððs€counterclaim€for€conspiracy.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€alsoÏdismissed€Figlioððs€third„party€complaint€for€fraud€and€conspiracy€against€Third„PartyÏDefendant/Appellee€Larry€Cherry.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€affirm€in€partÏand€reverse€in€part€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€and€we€remand€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌÔ&  Ôòòà@ àI.€€Procedural€HistoryóóÌà àThis€lawsuit€began€as€an€unlawful€detainer€action€filed€in€the€MetropolitanÏGeneralÔ'  Ô€Sessions€Court€of€Davidson€County€by€Prism€Partners€against€Figlio.€œIn›€itsÏcomplaint,€Prism€Partners€alleged€that€Figlio€was€unlawfully€detaining€certain€realÏproperty€located€at€115€Brookhollow€Road€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€œThe›€complaintÏsought€possession€of€the€property€and€past„due€rent€in€the€amount€of€$63,000.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€case€was€transferred€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€FiglioÏfiled€an€answer€in€which€he€asserted€several€affirmative€defenses,€including,€but€notÍlimited€to,€the€statute€of€limitations,€unclean€hands,€and€œconspiracy.›€œFiglio›€alsoÏasserted€a€counterclaim€against€Prism€Partners€for€conspiracy.€€œIn›€support€of€thisÏcounterclaim,€Figlio€alleged€that€Prism€Partners€received€title€to€the€subject€property€byÏquitclaim€deed€executed€by€Third„Party€Defendant€Larry€Cherry€on€October31,€1995;Ïthat€Prism€Partners€paid€no€consideration€for€the€property;€and€that€Prism€Partners€andÏCherry€had€conspired€to€deprive€Figlio€of€his€ownership€of€the€property.€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€asserting€a€counterclaim€against€Prism€Partners,€Figlio€filed€aÏthird„party€complaint€against€Larry€Cherry€for€fraud€and€conspiracy.€€œThe›€conspiracyÏcount€was€based€on€the€same€factual€assertions€as€the€conspiracy€claim€against€PrismÏPartners.€€œThe›€fraud€claim,€however,€dated€back€to€a€series€of€events€beginning€inÏ1986.€€In€support€of€the€fraud€claim,€Figlio€made€the€following€allegations:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à5.à àThat€in€1986,€Cherry€owned€and€operated€a€financialÏconsultant€business€under€the€style€of€Money€ManagementÏServices.ÌÌà8 àà8 à6.à àThat€in€or€about€February,€1986,€Figlio€and€his€wife,Ïwere€experiencing€financial€difficulties€and€consulted€withÏCherry€regarding€the€establishment€of€a€plan€to€enableÏthem€to€retain€their€financial€stability.ÌÌà8 àà8 à7.à àThat€Cherry€established€a€financial€plan€whereinÏFiglio€and€his€wife€would€pay€all€of€their€income€to€CherryÏand€he€would€negotiate€with€their€creditors,€pay€their€bills,Ïand€conserve€their€income€until€such€time€as€they€hadÏreached€financial€stability.ÌÌà8 àà8 à8.à àThat€Cherry€further€devised€a€plan€wherein€FiglioÏand€his€wife€would€sell€their€home€at€115€BrookhollowÏRoad,€Nashville,€Davidson€County,€Tennessee,€to€certain€ofÏCherryððs€investors€for€the€sum€of€$150,000,€which€wouldÏgive€the€investors€a€tax€advantage€and€at€the€same€time,Ïprovide€monies€needed€by€Figlio€and€his€wife€to€bringÏcurrent€their€obligations€and€have€additional€capital€uponÏwhich€to€live.€€Said€sale€was€described€as€being€in€actualityÍa€loan€with€the€right€in€Figlio€to€repurchase€the€propertyÏwhen€they€were€financially€able€to€either€sell€or€refinanceÏthe€property.ÌÌà8 àà8 à9.à àThat€Figlio€and€his€wife€paid€all€of€their€income€toÏCherry€for€approximately€one€year.ÌÌà8 àà8 à10.à àThat€Cherry€failed€and/or€refused€to€properly€accountÏfor€monies€received€and€many€obligations€of€Figlio€and€hisÏwife€were€either€not€paid€or€paid€in€an€untimely€manner,Ïcausing€additional€problems€for€Figlio€and€his€wife,Ïincluding€claims€filed€against€them€by€the€Internal€RevenueÏService.ÌÌà8 àà8 à11.à àThat€Cherry€fraudulently€induced€Figlio€and€his€wifeÏto€execute€a€deed€to€their€property€to€Cherryððs€investors,€fullÏwell€knowing€that€the€financial€plan€structured€by€him€forÏFiglio€and€his€wife,€would€never€result€in€their€ability€toÏrepurchase€the€property.ÌÌà8 àà8 à12.à àThat€Cherry€and€Figlio€terminated€their€arrangementÏin€or€about€February,€1987.ÌÌà8 àà8 à13.à àThat€Figlio€paid€rent€on€the€property€at€the€rate€ofÏ$900€per€month€until€June,€1989,€when€he€was€unable€toÏobtain€a€true€and€accurate€accounting€from€Cherry.ÌÌà8 àà8 à14.à àThat€from€and€after€June,€1989,€Cherry€continuallyÏthreatened€Figlio€with€eviction,€but€full€well€knowing€of€hisÏfraudulent€acts€and€misrepresentations,€did€not€bring€anÏeviction€action€until€June,€1994,€when€he€filed€a€DetainerÏWarrant€in€the€Metropolitan€General€Sessions€Court,ÏDocket€Number€94GT4843,€alleging€that€Figlio€was€inÏarrears€in€the€sum€of€$48,600,....ÌÌà8 àà8 à15.à àThat€Cherry€failed€to€prosecute€said€DetainerÏWarrant€and€in€December,€1995,€entered€a€voluntary€non„suit....€€ÌÌÓÓœFiglioððs›€third„party€complaint€further€alleged€that,€having€dismissed€the€initial€detainerÏwarrant,€Cherry€conspired€with€Prism€Partners€to€deprive€Figlio€of€his€property.€œIn›Ïfurtherance€of€this€conspiracy,€Cherry€allegedly€executed€the€quitclaim€deed€andÏtransferred€the€property€to€Prism€Partners€for€no€consideration.€ÌÌà àIn€response€to€the€third„party€complaint,€Cherry€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,Ïcontending€that€the€complaint€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€grantedÏand€that€the€complaint€was€barred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€for€fraudÏœactions.›€€œPrism›€Partners€filed€a€ð ðResponse€to€Motion€to€Dismissðð€in€which€it€adopted€theÏlegal€arguments€set€forth€in€Cherryððs€motion€to€dismiss.€ÌÌà àIn€March€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€dismissing€Figlioððs€third„partyÏclaims€against€Cherry€for€fraud€and€conspiracy€based€on€the€courtððs€ruling€that€FiglioÏhad€not€pled€these€claims€with€sufficient€particularity.€€œòòSeeóó›€T.R.C.P.€9.02.ÌÌà àFiglio€filed€a€motion€to€vacate€the€trial€courtððs€March€1996€order,€supported€by€aÏmemorandum€and€affidavit.€€œIn›€his€affidavit,€Figlio€admitted€that€Cherryððs€fraudulentÏscheme€initially€was€exposed€in€1989.€€œFiglio›€asserted,€however,€that€Cherry€hadÏengaged€in€an€intentional,€ongoing€conspiracy€to€deprive€Figlio€of€funds€and€propertyÏwhich€culminated€in€October€1995,€when€Cherry€quitclaimed€the€property€to€PrismÏPartners€for€no€consideration.€ÌÌà àIn€April€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€which€ruled€that,€inasmuch€asÏFiglioððs€third„party€claim€for€conspiracy€against€Cherry€had€been€dismissed,€ð ðtheÏsubject€matter€of€the€Motion€For€Summary€Judgment€set€for€hearing€April19,€1996Ï[was]€moot.ðð€€œBecause›€no€motion€for€summary€judgment€appears€in€the€record,€we€canÏonly€surmise€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€referred€to€Prism€Partnersðð€ð ðResponse€to€MotionÍto€Dismissðð€in€which€Prism€Partners€adopted€the€legal€grounds€for€dismissal€set€forth€inÏCherryððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€Ìà àOn€June17,€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€which€made€the€followingÏrulings:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à1.à àThat€any€fraud,€misrepresentation€and/orÏconspiracy€claim€as€to€Prism€Partners,€L.P.€is€dismissed,Ïwith€prejudice;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à2.à àThat€the€Defendant,€Michael€Figlio,€vacate€theÏpremises€as€he€has€unlawfully€detained€the€premises;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à3.à àThat€the€Warranty€Deed€executed€by€FiglioÏand€his€wife€in€1986,€be€given€full€force€and€effect€accordingÏto€its€specific€terms;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à4.à àThat€Prism,€L.P.€has€free€and€clear€title€to€theÏproperty€as€to€Defendant€Figlio;€andÌÌà8 àà8 àà à5.à àThat€a€date€be€set€for€a€determination€as€toÏissues€concerning€damages€only.€ÌÌÓÓœThe›€trial€court€also€entered€an€order€on€June17,€1996,€which€denied€Figlioððs€motion€toÏvacate€the€courtððs€previous€judgment€dismissing€Third„Party€Defendant€Cherry€fromÏthis€lawsuit.€€œThis›€time,€in€reaffirming€its€dismissal€of€the€third„party€complaint€againstÏCherry,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€Figlioððs€cause€of€action€against€Cherry€was€barred€byÏthe€statute€of€limitations.€€œThe›€trial€courtððs€order€indicated€that,€in€making€its€ruling,€theÏcourt€considered€the€entire€record,€including€affidavits€and€depositions€filed€in€theÏcase.€ÌÌà àOn€August8,€1996,€Prism€Partners€filed€a€motion€asking€the€trial€court€to€enter€aÏfinal€judgment€in€this€case€as€to€all€issues€but€damages.€€œThe›€trial€court€granted€theÏmotion€and,€on€September11,€1996,€entered€a€final€judgment€pursuant€to€rule€54.02Íof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€œThe›€trial€court€entered€an€amended€finalÏjudgment€on€September30,€1996,€which€additionally€assessed€costs€against€Figlio.€ÏœFiglio›€timely€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial,€which€was€denied€on€December9,€1996.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Figlio€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€third„partyÏcomplaint€for€fraud€and€conspiracy€against€Cherry€on€statute€of€limitations€grounds;€inÏdismissing€Figlioððs€counterclaim€for€conspiracy€against€Prism€Partners;€and,€finally,€inÏentering€judgment€in€favor€of€Prism€Partners€on€the€detainer€warrant€without€ruling€onÏthe€defenses€asserted€in€Figlioððs€answer,€such€as€the€statute€of€limitations,€uncleanÏhands,€and€conspiracy.€€ÌÌà@ àÔ&  ÔòòII.€€Standard€of€ReviewóóÌœ›à àAs€an€initial€matter,€we€find€it€necessary€to€determine€the€appropriate€standardÔ'  ÔÏgoverning€this€courtððs€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€in€this€case.€€Although€PrismÏPartnersðð€and€Cherryððs€motions€to€dismiss€originally€were€filed€pursuant€to€ruleÏ12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€the€orders€under€review€revealÏthat€the€trial€court€considered€the€entire€record€in€issuing€its€rulings,€including€affidavitsÏand€depositions€filed€by€the€parties.€€œBy›€considering€matters€outside€the€pleadings,€theÏtrial€court€converted€the€motions€to€dismiss€into€motions€for€summary€judgment.€€òòPacificÏE.€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2d€946,€952€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€T.R.C.P.Ï56.03.ÌÌà àSummary€judgment€is€to€be€rendered€by€a€trial€court€only€when€it€is€shown€thatÏthere€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€toÍa€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€T.R.C.P.€56.03.€€When€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏis€used€defensively,€the€plaintiff€must€present€evidence€sufficient€to€establish€theÏessential€elements€of€the€claim€on€which€he€will€bear€the€burden€of€proof€at€trial.€ÏòòBlairv.€Allied€Maintenance€Corp.óó,€756€S.W.2d€267,€269„70€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€InÏruling€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€mustÏconsider€the€matter€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€made€at€theÏclose€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof.€€All€of€the€evidence€must€be€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion€and€all€legitimate€conclusions€of€fact€must€beÏdrawn€in€favor€of€the€opponent.€€It€is€only€when€there€is€no€disputed€issue€of€materialÏfact€that€a€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€by€the€trial€court€and€sustained€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeals.€€òòByrdv.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà@ àÔ&  ÔòòIII.€€Figlioððs€Fraud€Claim€Against€CherryóóÌœ›à àApplying€the€foregoing€standard,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€FiglioððsÏfraudÔ'  Ô€claim€against€Cherry€based€on€the€statute€of€limitations.€€In€Tennessee,€theÏstatute€of€limitations€for€fraud€is€three€years.€€òòVancev.€Schulderóó,€547€S.W.2d€927,€933Ï(Tenn.€1977);€òòAmerican€Fidelity€Fire€Ins.€Co.v.€Tuckeróó,€671€S.W.2d€837,€841€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1983);€T.C.A.€ðð28„3„105€(1980).€€As€previously€indicated,€Figlio€admitted€in€hisÏaffidavit€that€Cherryððs€fraudulent€scheme€initially€was€exposed€in€1989;€however,€FiglioÏdid€not€file€his€third„party€claim€for€fraud€against€Cherry€until€January€1996.€ÏœAccordingly,›€based€on€the€undisputed€evidence,€we€hold€that€Figlioððs€fraud€claim€wasÏbarred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà@ àÔ&  ÔòòIV.€€Figlioððs€Conspiracy€Claims€Against€Prism€Partners€and€CherryóóÌœ›à àContrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination,€however,€the€courtððs€dismissal€of€theÏfraudÔ'  Ô€claim€against€Cherry€did€not€automatically€dispose€of€the€conspiracy€claimsÏagainst€Cherry€and€Prism€Partners.€€Figlioððs€third„party€complaint€against€CherryÏalleged,€not€one,€but€two€separate€torts:€€fraud€and€conspiracy.€€œThe›€first€tort€occurredÏin€1986,€when€Cherry€allegedly€fraudulently€induced€Figlio€to€execute€a€quitclaimÏdeed€to€the€subject€property€by€falsely€representing,€among€other€things,€that€theÏtransaction€was€in€actuality€a€loan€and€that€the€transaction€was€in€Figlioððs€financial€bestÏinterests.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€œThe›€second€tort€occurred€in€1995,€when€Cherry€and€Prism€PartnersÏallegedly€conspired€to€deprive€Figlio€of€the€subject€property.€€œFiglio›€alleged€that,€to€thisÏend,€Cherry€executed€a€quitclaim€deed€to€the€property€to€Prism€Partners€for€zeroÏconsideration.€ÌÌà àThe€statute€of€limitations€for€conspiracy€is€only€one€year.€€òòBraswellv.€Carothersóó,Ï863€S.W.2d€722,€725€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòHarvest€Corp.v.€Ernst€&€Whinneyóó,€610ÏS.W.2d€727,€729„30€(Tenn.€App.€1980);€T.C.A.€ðð28„3„104€(Supp.€1990).€€This€one„year€period€of€limitation,€however,€does€not€begin€to€run€until€the€time€that€an€overt€actÏof€the€conspiracy€occurs€which€causes€damage€to€the€complainant.€€òòBudget€Rent„A„Carv.€Car€Servicesóó,€469€S.W.2d€360,€362€(Tenn.€1971);€òòEmersonv.€Machameróó,€431ÏS.W.2d€283,€286€(Tenn.€1968).€€In€this€case,€an€overt€act€of€the€alleged€conspiracyÏoccurred€in€October€1995,€when€Cherry€transferred€the€property€to€Prism€Partners€forÏno€consideration.€€œIf,›€as€alleged,€Cherry€and€Prism€Partners€were€acting€in€concert€toÍdeprive€Figlio€of€the€subject€property,€the€argument€also€could€be€made€that€PrismÏPartners€acted€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy€by€filing€this€unlawful€detainer€action€inÏNovember€1995.€€œIn›€any€event,€Figlioððs€counterclaim€and€third„party€claim€forÏconspiracy,€filed€in€January€1996,€were€timely€filed€within€the€one„year€statute€ofÏlimitations.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€foregoing€discussion,€of€course,€assumes€that€Figlio€has€presentedÏevidence€sufficient€to€establish€the€essential€elements€of€a€claim€for€civil€conspiracyÏagainst€Prism€Partners€and€Cherry.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlairv.€Allied€Maintenance€Corp.óó,€756ÏS.W.2d€267,€269„70€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€A€civil€conspiracy€isÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€ð ðcombination€between€two€or€more€persons€to€accomplishÏby€concert€an€unlawful€purpose,€or€to€accomplish€a€purposeÏnot€in€itself€unlawful€by€unlawful€means.ðð€€òòDalev.ÏThomasH.€Temple€Co.óó,€[208€S.W.2d€344,€353€(Tenn.Ï1948)].€€The€essence€of€a€civil€conspiracy€is€a€concert€orÏcombination€to€defraud€or€cause€other€injury€to€person€orÏproperty,€which€results€in€damage€to€the€person€or€propertyÏof€the€plaintiff.€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó,€5th€Ed.€1979.€€TheÏrequisite€elements€of€the€cause€of€action€are€commonÏdesign,€concert€of€action,€and€an€overt€act.€€òòKoehlerv.ÏCummingsóó,€380€F.€Supp.€1294€(M.D.€Tenn.€1974).ÌÌÓÓœòòKirksey›v.€Overton€Pub,€Inc.óó,€739€S.W.2d€230,€236„37€(Tenn.€App.€1987);€òòaccordóóÏòòBraswellv.€Carothersóó,€863€S.W.2d€722,€727€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€Figlio€has€presented€sufficient€evidence€to€support€his€claimÏthat€€Cherry€and€Prism€Partners€acted€in€concert€to€wrongfully€deprive€Figlio€of€theÏsubject€property.€€Figlioððs€theory€of€recovery€was€that€Cherry€justifiably€feared€that€hisÏprior€fraudulent€conduct€in€procuring€title€to€the€subject€property€would€prevent€himÏfrom€successfully€pursuing€an€unlawful€detainer€action€in€his€own€name;€that€CherryÏand€Prism€Partners,€therefore,€agreed€that€Cherry€would€convey€the€subject€property€toÏPrism€Partners,€which,€in€return,€would€pursue€the€unlawful€detainer€action€in€theÏpartnershipððs€name;€and€that,€to€this€end,€Cherry€conveyed€the€subject€property€toÏPrism€Partners€for€no€consideration.€€œThe›€affidavits€and€depositions€filed€in€this€caseÏreveal€the€following€evidence€to€support€this€theory.€€In€1986,€Cherry€induced€Figlio€toÏquitclaim€the€subject€property€to€him€by€falsely€representing€that€the€transaction€wasÏactually€a€loan€and€that€the€transaction€was€in€Figlioððs€best€interest€financially.€€œIn›Ï1994,€Cherry€filed€an€unlawful€detainer€action€seeking€to€oust€Figlio€from€the€property,Ïbut€Cherry€later€filed€a€voluntary€non„suit€dismissing€this€action.€€œCherryððs›€only€statedÏreason€for€dismissing€the€lawsuit€was€that€he€ð ðreally€[didnððt]€like€lawsuits.ðð€€œShortly›Ïbefore€Cherryððs€dismissal€of€the€lawsuit,€Cherry€transferred€the€subject€property€toÏPrism€Partners.€€œThe›€deed€recited€that€there€was€zero€consideration€for€the€transfer.€ÏœPrism›€Partners€was€formed€on€October30,€1995,€only€one€day€before€CherryÏtransferred€the€subject€property€to€the€partnership.€€œThe›€general€partner€of€PrismÏPartners€was€Prism€Management,€Inc.,€which€was€solely€owned€by€RichardL.€Garrett.€ÏœGarrett›€was€Cherryððs€accountant,€and€their€offices€were€in€the€same€building.€€œThe›Ïremaining€partners€of€Prism€Partners€were€fourteen€investors€who€formerly€belongedÏto€an€investment€group€known€as€Money€Management€III,€for€which€Cherry€served€asÏtrustee€prior€to€formation€of€the€partnership.€€œThe›€investors€joined€Prism€Partners€onÍthe€advice€of€Garrett,€who€discussed€the€matter€with€Cherry€and€an€attorney.€ÏApproximately€one€week€after€receiving€title€to€the€subject€property,€Prism€PartnersÏfiled€this€unlawful€detainer€action€against€Figlio.€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€much€of€the€above€evidence€was€circumstantial€as€toÏwhether€Cherry€and€Prism€Partners€had€the€requisite€agreement€to€engage€in€a€civilÏconspiracy.€€A€civil€conspiracy,€however,€may€be€proven€by€evidence€which€is€largelyÏcircumstantial.€€òòSeeóó€òòDalev.€ThomasH.€Temple€Co.óó,€208€S.W.2d€344,€353€(Tenn.Ï1948).€€Moreover,€we€note€that,€as€a€general€rule,€ð ðsummary€judgments€should€not€beÏgranted€in€cases€where€the€outcome€hinges€squarely€upon€the€state€of€mind,€intent,€orÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses.ðð€€òòKnappv.€Holiday€Innsóó,€682€S.W.2d€936,€941„42€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984).€€This€rule€is€particularly€apt€where,€as€in€this€case,€the€critical€witnessesÏare€also€parties€to€the€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcDowellv.€Mooreóó,€863€S.W.2d€418,€421€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1992).€€Based€on€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€Prism€Partners€and€Cherry€on€FiglioððsÏclaims€for€conspiracy.ÌÌà@ àÔ&  ÔòòV.€€Figlioððs€Defenses€to€Prism€Partnersðð€Unlawful€Detainer€ActionóóÌœ›à àWe€likewise€agree€with€Figlioððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€improperly€grantedÔ'  ÔÏrelief€to€Prism€Partners€on€its€unlawful€detainer€warrant€without€ruling€on€the€defensesÏasserted€in€Figlioððs€answer.€€Again,€we€can€only€surmise€that€the€trial€court€granted€thisÏrelief€based€on€the€courtððs€determination€that€the€dismissal€of€Figlioððs€claims€for€fraudÏand€conspiracy€somehow€disposed€of€Figlioððs€defenses€to€the€unlawful€detainerÏaction,€particularly€the€defenses€of€unclean€hands€and€conspiracy.€€The€trial€courtððsÍdismissal€of€the€fraud€and€conspiracy€claims,€however,€was€based€on€the€statute€ofÏlimitations,€not€on€the€courtððs€factual€determination€that€the€claims€were€unfounded.€€AsÏwe€previously€have€held,€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€conspiracy€claims€was€inÏerror.€€Moreover,€even€if€the€fraud€and€conspiracy€claims€were€properly€dismissedÏbased€upon€the€applicable€statutes€of€limitations,€we€can€find€nothing€in€the€law,€andÏthe€parties€have€cited€no€authority,€which€would€preclude€Figlio€from€asserting€theÏdoctrine€of€unclean€hands€and€conspiracy€defensively€in€this€lawsuit.€€While€causes€ofÏaction€have€statutes€of€limitations,€defenses€do€not.̛̜à àUnder€the€doctrine€of€unclean€hands,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[H]e€who€comes€into€a€court€of€equity,€asking€itsÏinterposition€in€his€behalf,€must€come€with€clean€hands;€andÏif€it€appears€from€the€case€made€by€him€or€by€his€adversaryÏthat€he€has€himself€been€guilty€of€unconscionable,Ïinequitable,€or€immoral€conduct€in€and€about€the€sameÏmatters€whereof€he€complains€of€his€adversary,€or€if€hisÏclaim€to€relief€grows€out€of€or€depends€upon€or€isÏinseparably€connected€with€his€own€prior€fraud,€he€will€beÏrepelled€at€the€threshold€of€the€court.ÌÌÓÓœòòC.F.›€Simmons€Med.€Co.v.€Mansfield€Drug€Co.óó,€23€S.W.€165,€168€(Tenn.€1893).€€TheÏdoctrine€of€unclean€handsÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[E]xpresses€the€principle€that€where€a€party€comes€intoÏequity€for€relief€he€or€she€must€show€that€his€or€her€conductÏhas€been€fair,€equitable,€and€honest€as€to€the€particularÏcontroversy€in€issue.€€A€complainant€will€not€be€permitted€toÏtake€advantage€of€his€or€her€own€wrong€or€claim€the€benefitÏof€his€or€her€own€fraud€or€that€of€his€or€her€privies.ÌÌÓÓœ27A›Am.€Jur.€2d€òòEquityóó€ðð126€(1996).ÌÌà àThis€equitable€maxim€prevents€parties€from€using€the€courts€to€enforceÏagreements€ð ðthat€arise€out€of€unconscionable,€immoral€or€just€plain€ððcrookedðð€conduct.ðð€ÏòòFarmers&€Merchants€Bankv.€Templetonóó,€646€S.W.2d€920,€924€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€ÏThe€operation€of€the€maxim€is€confined€to€misconduct€connected€with€the€subjectÏmatter€of€the€litigation.€€òòGreerv.€Shelby€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€659€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€App.Ï1983)€(citing€Henry€R.€Gibson,€òòGibsonððs€Suits€in€Chanceryóó€ðð18,€at€20„21€(William€H.ÏInman€ed.,€6th€ed.€1982)).€€Subject€to€the€procedures€set€forth€in€òòContinental€BankersÏLife€Insurance€Co.v.€Simmonsóó,€561€S.W.2d€460,€464€(Tenn.€App.€1977),€this€equitableÏdefense€may€be€raised€in€circuit€court€or€in€chancery€court,€even€if€the€suit€is€one€atÏlaw.ÌÌà àAlthough€a€finding€of€fraud€or€conspiracy€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiff€may€supportÏthe€defense€of€unclean€hands,€the€success€of€an€unclean€hands€defense€is€notÏcontingent€upon€the€defendantððs€successful€pursuit€of€any€actionable€claim€against€theÏplaintiff:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[O]neððs€misconduct€need€not€necessarily€have€been€of€suchÏa€nature€as€to€be€punishable€as€a€crime€or€as€to€justify€legalÏproceedings€of€any€character€to€[warrant]€application€of€theÏmaxim;€any€wilful€act€concerning€the€cause€of€action€whichÏrightfully€can€be€said€to€transgress€equitable€standards€ofÏconduct€is€sufficient€cause€for€the€invocation€of€the€maxim.€ÏWithin€the€purview€of€the€maxim,€the€hands€of€the€litigantÏare€rendered€unclean€by€conduct€which€is€ð ðcondemned€andÏpronounced€wrongful€by€honest€and€fair„minded€men,ððÏinequitable,€unfair,€dishonest,€fraudulent,€unconscionable,Ïor€in€bad€faith.ÌÌÓÓœ27A›Am.€Jur.€2d€òòEquityóó€ðð129€(1996)€(footnotes€omitted);€òòaccordóó€òòSouthern€Coal&ÏCoke€Co.v.€Beech€Grove€Mining€Co.óó,€381€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€App.€1963)Ï(indicating€that,€if€plaintiff€has€committed€any€willful€act€in€regard€to€subject€matter€ofÍlitigation€ð ðwhich€would€be€condemned€and€pronounced€wrongful€by€honest€andÏfairminded€men,ðð€such€act€will€be€sufficient€to€make€plaintiffððs€hands€unclean)€(quotingÏòòChristiansv.€Town€of€East€Ridgeóó,€12€Tenn.€App.€101,€112€(1928)).€€In€accordance€withÏthe€foregoing€authorities,€we€conclude€that€the€record€contains€evidence€to€supportÏFiglioððs€defenses€of€unclean€hands€and€conspiracy€and,€thus,€that€summary€judgmentÏwas€improvidently€granted€in€Prism€Partnersðð€unlawful€detainer€action.ÌÌà@ àÔ&  ÔòòVI.€€ConclusionóóÌœ›à àIn€holding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€relief€to€Prism€Partners€on€itsÏunlawfulÔ'  Ô€detainer€warrant€without€ruling€on€Figlioððs€defenses,€we€express€no€opinionÏon€the€merits€of€the€various€defenses€asserted€by€Figlio€or€on€the€merits€of€FiglioððsÏconspiracy€claims€against€Prism€Partners€and€Cherry.€€We€merely€hold€that,€at€thisÏstage€in€the€proceedings,€the€pleadings€and€evidence€reveal€genuine€issues€ofÏmaterial€fact€which€precluded€the€trial€court€from€deciding€these€issues€on€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà àThe€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€dismissing€Figlioððs€third„party€claim€forÏfraud€against€Cherry€is€affirmed.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€isÏhereby€reversed.€€Specifically,€the€trial€courtððs€order€awarding€Prism€PartnersÏaffirmative€relief€on€its€unlawful€detainer€warrant,€as€well€as€the€trial€courtððs€ordersÏdismissing€Figlioððs€claims€for€conspiracy€against€Prism€Partners€and€Cherry,€areÏreversed,€and€this€cause€is€œÌremanded›€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€Appellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›