ÿWPCå+ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0 l 0Dü 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 B¨ 1uÅ 0d: D3ž 0@ÑU >U6OB)…DC® AMñU*>hp,A«ìFó‘9®ÊhxUà‰51¾ v~ï"vÓm$ AO@*Æ* 0DU+ D/™+ BÈ+˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ íEîïDðñÿaeDÓ€Úƒç"3|x&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd€-3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òJanuary€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔFor€ease€of€reference,€Diversified€and€Alt€will€be€collectivelyÏreferred€to€as€ð ðthe€defendants.ððÌ 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔThe€individual€plaintiffs€are€Perry€Russell,€Don€Beal,€Betty€Beal,€GaryÏLong,€Judy€Long€and€the€appellant,€Dianna€Williams.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔThis€is€the€landfill€at€which€Diversified€proposed€its€expansion.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔòòSee€ò òResidents€Against€Industrial€Landfill€Expansion€v.ÏDiversified€Systems,€Inc.ó óóó,€804€F.Supp.€1036€(E.D.Tenn.€1992).Ì ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔòòSee€ò òDiversified€Systems,€Inc.€v.€Residents€Against€IndustrialÏLandfill€Expansion,€Inc.,€et€al.ó óóó,€C/A€No.€03A01„9310„CV„00348,€1994€WLÏ66651€(Tenn.App.,€E.S.,€filed€March€7,€1994,€Sanders,€J.).Ì ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔThe€legislature€has€recently€recognized€the€evils€of€this€type€ofÏlawsuit.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„1001,€òòet€seqóó.€€This€legislation€was€enacted€afterÏthe€underlying€action€was€filed€and€hence€is€not€applicable€to€this€case.Ì ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔSeveral€of€the€cases€cited€in€this€opinion€involve€maliciousÏprosecution€claims€in€which€the€underlying€proceeding€was€criminal,€ratherÏthan€civil,€in€nature.€€However,€it€has€been€noted€that€ð ðthe€same€generalÏrules€and€limitations€apply€to€an€action€founded€upon€a€civil€proceeding,€vis„a„vis€criminal€proceedings.ðð€€ò òòòMorat›€v.€State€Farm€œMut›.€Auto.€œIns›.€Co.ó óóó,Ï949€œS.W.2d›€692,€695€(œTenn.App›.€1997).€€It€is€clear€that€a€maliciousÏprosecution€claim€will€lie€for€a€wrongfully€pursued€civil€action.€€òòSeeÏò òœPeerman›€v.€œSidicane›ó óóó,€605€œS.W.2d›€242,€245€(œTenn.App›.€1980);€ò òòòEvans€v.ÏœPerkey›ó óóó,€647€œS.W.2d›€636,€641€(Tenn.App.€1982).Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔIn€ò òòòRoberts€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.,ó óóó€842€S.W.2d€246€(Tenn.€1992),Ïthe€Supreme€Court€overruled€ò òòòLewisóóó ó€and€other€decisions€to€the€extent€that€theyÏhad€held€that€the€question€of€probable€cause€was€ultimately€a€question€of€lawÏfor€the€court.€€However,€the€proposition€for€which€ò òòòLewisóóó ó,€ò òòòCarteróóó ó€and€ò òòòKerney›óóó óÏare€cited€in€this€opinion€remains€valid.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔAs€shown€in€a€different€context,€an€attorney,€in€filing€a€lawsuit,€hasÏan€obligation€to€conduct€a€reasonable€inquiry€regarding€the€factual€basis€forÏthe€suit.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€11.02,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.Ì 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔAbuse€of€process€has€been€defined€as€a€ð ðuse€of€legal€process€to€obtainÏa€result€it€was€not€intended€to€effect,€for€wrongful€purposes.ðð€€ò òòòEvansó óóó,€647ÏS.W.2d€at€641.€€While€this€aspect€of€Williamsðð€claim€is€not€discussedÏextensively€in€the€briefs,€we€have€concluded€that€neither€of€the€defendants€isÏentitled€to€summary€judgment€as€to€this€claim.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€1ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€œýXXdðdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€473A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌRESIDENTS€AGAINST€INDUSTRIALà à€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9703„CV„00102ÌLANDFILL€EXPANSION,€INC.€(RAILE),)ÌPERRY€RUSSELL,€DON€BEAL,€BETTY€€€)ÌBEAL,€GARY€LONG€and€JUDY€LONG,€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àPlaintiffs,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌDIANNA€WILLIAMS,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à€€€)€McMINN€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌDIVERSIFIED€SYSTEMS,€INC.€and€€€€)ÌWILLIAM€T.€ALT,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,€JR.,Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à à€€€)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee€William€T.€AltÌÌGARY€A.€DAVISà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€G.€ALTÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee€DiversifiedÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Systems,€Inc.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNO€APPEARANCEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔÔ€1ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌVACATED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€defendants,€DiversifiedÏSystems,€Inc.€(ð ðDiversifiedðð)€and€its€attorney,€William€T.€AltÏ(ð ðAltðð)× ƒ8 ××  ×,€summary€judgment€on€the€complaint€for€maliciousÏprosecution€and€abuse€of€process€filed€by€the€plaintiffs,ÏResidents€Against€Industrial€Landfill€Expansion,€Inc.€(ð ðRAILEðð)Ïand€six€individuals× ƒ9 ××  ×€(collectively,€ð ðthe€plaintiffsðð).€€DiannaÏWilliams€(ð ðWilliamsðð)€is€the€only€plaintiff€who€has€appealed.€€SheÏpresents€the€following€questions€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€grantingÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Diversified€andÏAlt?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€toÏcontinue€Diversifiedððs€and€Altððs€motions€forÏsummary€judgment€in€order€to€allow€furtherÏdiscovery?ÌÌà àà8 àÓÓà àà àÌà@ àI.€€òòFactsóóÌÌà àà àThe€events€leading€to€this€litigation€began€in€1990,Ïwhen€Diversified€applied€to€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEnvironment€and€Conservation€for€a€permit€to€expand€a€landfillÏnear€Athens,€Tennessee,€which€it€had€operated€since€approximatelyÏ1981.€€Diversifiedððs€application€precipitated€the€incorporation€ofÏRAILE€by€several€area€residents€concerned€with€the€landfillððsÏsafety€and€environmental€impact.€€The€appellant€Williams€was€notÏinvolved€in€the€initial€formation€of€RAILE.ÌÌà àà àMembers€of€RAILE,€not€including€Williams,€subsequentlyÏparticipated€in€a€public€hearing€regarding€the€proposed€landfillÏexpansion€and€submitted€written€comments€on€the€subject.€€TheyÏalso€appeared€before€the€McMinn€County€Commission,€seeking€aÏresolution€opposing€the€expansion€of€the€landfill.€€During€theseÏappearances,€members€of€RAILE€made€various€statements€regardingÍprior€contamination€problems€at€the€landfill€and€the€suitabilityÏof€the€proposed€expansion.ÌÌà àà àWhile€Williams€first€became€involved€with€RAILE€in€1992,Ïher€initial€participation€was€limited€to€opposing€an€incineratorÏthat€had€been€proposed€by€a€company€other€than€Diversified.€€InÏher€sworn€affidavit,€Williams€states€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àPrior€to€the€time€that€Diversified€sued€me€forÏ$13.2€million€in€March€1993,€I€had€notÏparticipated€in€any€public€hearings€or€McMinnÏCounty€Commission€meetings€concerning€the€MineÏRoad€Landfill× ƒ: ××  ×.€€I€had€not€made€any€statementsÏconcerning€the€landfill€to€governmentÏofficials€or€to€the€press.ÌÌà àà8 àI€did€attend€approximately€three€RAILEÏmeetings€at€which€the€Mine€Road€Landfill€wasÏdiscussed€and€also€attended€a€public€hearingÏconcerning€the€proposed€Mine€Road€LandfillÏexpansion€in€August€1993.€€I€did€not€speakÏabout€my€concerns€regarding€the€landfillÏexpansion€at€the€public€hearing€in€August€1993Ïbecause€of€the€$13.2€million€lawsuit€thatÏ[Diversified]€had€filed€against€me.€€This€wasÏthe€extent€of€my€involvement€with€RAILEÏconcerning€the€Mine€Road€Landfill.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àIn€June,€1991,€prior€to€Williamsðð€initial€involvementÏwith€RAILE,€that€organization€filed€suit€against€Diversified€inÍthe€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€ofÏTennessee.€€RAILEððs€suit€was€an€effort€to€remedy€the€discharge€ofÏpollutants€from€the€Mine€Road€Landfill€into€two€area€streams.€€TheÏDistrict€Court€held€that€Diversified€was€required€to€obtain€aÏdischarge€permit.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Pursuant€to€a€February€10,€1993,€settlementÏagreement€in€the€federal€court€action,€Diversified€agreed€to€applyÏfor€a€discharge€permit,€to€comply€with€pollution€limitations€inÏthe€meantime,€and€to€pay€the€fees€and€expenses€of€RAILEððsÏattorneys.ÌÌà àà àApproximately€one€month€after€the€settlement€agreementÏwas€executed,€Diversified€filed€suit€in€state€court€against€RAILEÏand€nine€named€individuals,€including€Williams.€€Three€ð ðJohn€DoeððÏdefendants€were€also€sued.€€Diversified€was€represented€by€Alt€inÏthat€action.€€The€complaint,€which€was€signed€by€Alt,€sought€$13.2Ïmillion€in€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€for€alleged€wrongfulÏinterference€with€Diversifiedððs€business€relations.€€Specifically,ÏDiversified€alleged€that€RAILE€and€the€individual€defendants€hadÏmade€false€and€malicious€statements€to€state€officials€and€to€theÏgeneral€public€in€an€effort€to€defeat€its€application€for€aÍlandfill€expansion€permit,€and€had€sought€to€destroy€DiversifiedððsÏexisting€landfill€operation€by€influencing€others€to€cease€doingÏbusiness€and/or€breach€contracts€with€Diversified.€€Significantly,Ïthe€complaint€failed€to€contain€any€specific€allegations€regardingÏany€statements€or€actions€by€Williams.ÌÌà àà àOn€May€24,€1993,€the€trial€court€dismissed€DiversifiedððsÏcomplaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€beÏgranted.€€The€trial€court€denied€Diversifiedððs€motion€to€amend€itsÏcomplaint,€and€Diversified€appealed€to€this€court.€€We€reversedÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trialÏcourt.× ƒ< ××  ×€€Thereafter,€on€May€18,€1994,€Diversified,€without€amendingÏits€complaint,€served€the€defendants€with€a€notice€of€voluntaryÏdismissal.ÌÌà àà àThe€plaintiffs,€including€the€appellant€Williams,€filedÏthe€instant€action€on€June€23,€1994,€alleging€that€Diversified€andÏits€attorney,€Alt,€were€guilty€of€malicious€prosecution€and€abuseÏof€process€as€a€result€of€the€lawsuit€filed€by€Diversified€againstÏRAILE€and€the€various€individuals.€€In€addition€to€the€generalÍallegations€supporting€their€causes€of€action,€the€plaintiffsÏalleged€that€Diversified€and€Alt€filed€the€prior€suit€in€order€toÏpunish,€harass,€and€silence€RAILE,€its€members,€and€otherÏconcerned€citizens€of€McMinn€County.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€the€filing€of€the€instant€maliciousÏprosecution€action,€the€plaintiffs€served€Diversified€and€Alt€withÏinterrogatories€and€œa€request›€for€production€of€documents.€ÏDiversified€and€Alt€responded€by€moving€for€a€protective€order€andÏa€stay€of€discovery.€€Williams€then€filed€a€motion€to€compel.€€TheÏtrial€court€stayed€all€discovery,€except€for€the€depositions€ofÏthe€plaintiffs€and€three€of€Diversifiedððs€current€and€formerÏofficers.€€The€plaintiffs€proceeded€to€depose€these€officers,€andÏthe€defendants€commenced€the€depositions€of€the€plaintiffs.€€AÏdispute€œarose€regarding›€œdiscovery,›€resulting€in€the€filing€ofÏfurther€motions€by€both€sides.€€The€trial€court€ultimately€stayedÏfurther€discovery€pending€the€filing€of€motions€for€summaryÏjudgment€by€the€defendants.€€In€its€order,€the€trial€€€€€€€€€courtÏstated€that,€upon€request€of€the€plaintiffs€in€their€response€toÏthe€forthcoming€motions€for€summary€judgment,€it€would€considerÏpermitting€additional€discovery€before€ruling€on€the€motions.ÌÌà àà àThe€plaintiffsðð€response€to€the€motions€for€summaryÏjudgment€that€were€subsequently€filed€by€Diversified€and€AltÏincluded€extensive€and€specific€requests€for€further€discovery.€ÏThe€trial€court,€however,€denied€the€plaintiffsðð€requests€andÏgranted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€both€Diversified€and€Alt.€€InÏso€doing,€it€found€that€further€discovery€was€not€necessary;€thatÏthe€facts€ð ðwould€have€led€an€ordinarily€prudent€person€to€believeÏthat€plaintiffs€herein€were€guilty€of€tortious€interference€withÏ[Diversifiedððs]€business€interestsðð;€and€that€there€was€noÏð ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€to€support€a€finding€that€[Alt]Ïacted€with€malice€in€advising€his€client€to€proceed€with€a€civilÏaction€or€that€he€was€not€fully€informed€of€the€relevantÏallegations€by€his€client.ððÌÌà@ àII.€€òòStandard€of€ReviewóóÌÌà àà àWe€measure€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€ofÏsummary€judgment€against€the€standard€of€Rule€56.04,ÏTenn.R.Civ.P.,€which€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriateÏwhereÌÌÓÓà àà8 àthe€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€toÏinterrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,Ítogether€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€showÏthat€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€anyÏmaterial€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌÓÓÌWe€also€note€that€the€nonmoving€party,€in€this€case€Williams,€isÏentitled€to€the€benefit€of€any€doubt.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2dÏ208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€court€must€ð ðtake€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,Ïallow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€andÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence.ðð€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€210„11.€€All€factsÏsupporting€the€position€of€the€nonmovant€must€be€accepted€as€trueÏby€the€trial€court.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€212.€€It€is€only€when€the€materialÏfacts€are€undisputed€and€conclusively€demonstrate€that€the€movantÏis€entitled€to€a€judgment€that€a€trial€court€is€justified€inÏdepriving€a€claimant€of€its€right€to€a€plenary€trial;€in€all€otherÏinstances,€a€trial€on€the€merits€is€required.€€Summary€judgmentÏð ðis€clearly€not€designed€to€serve€as€a€substitute€for€the€trial€ofÏgenuine€and€material€factual€matters.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€210.ÌÌà àà àWhen€reviewing€a€grant€of€summary€judgment,€an€appellateÏcourt€must€decide€anew€if€judgment€in€a€summary€fashion€isÏappropriate.€€ò òòòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southó óóó,€816€S.W.2dÏ741,€744€(Tenn.€1991);€òòò òGonzalez€v.€Alman€Constr.€Co.ó óóó,€857ÍS.W.2d€42,€44„45€(Tenn.App.€1993).€€Since€this€determinationÏinvolves€a€question€of€law,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctnessÏas€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€òòò òId.;€Hembree€v.€Stateó óóó,€925ÏS.W.2d€513,€515€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà@ àIII.€€òòThe€Partiesðð€ContentionsóóÌÌà àà àWilliams€argues€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏshould€be€vacated€for€several€reasons.€€She€contends€that€summaryÏjudgment€was€inappropriate€because€the€defendants€did€not€carryÏtheir€burden€of€establishing€(1)€a€lack€of€material€factual€issuesÏand€(2)€entitlement€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€In€theÏalternative,€she€insists€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€theÏplaintiffsðð€request€for€further€discovery€constitutes€error,€inÏthat€it€prevented€the€plaintiffs€from€fully€and€adequatelyÏresponding€to€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment.€€SheÏargues€that€her€lack€of€participation€in€RAILEððs€opposition€to€theÏlandfill€expansion€clearly€indicates€that€there€was€no€probableÏcause€for€an€action€against€her.€€Williams€also€contends€thatÏfactual€issues€regarding€Diversifiedððs€and€Altððs€motivationÏremain,€as€evidenced€by€the€fact€that€their€lawsuit€fits€all€ofÏthe€characteristics€of€a€lawsuit€filed€to€intimidate€a€citizenÍinto€silence€regarding€an€issue€of€public€concern.× ƒ= ××  ×€€Finally,€sheÏargues€that€any€statements€attributable€to€her€are€protected€byÏthe€First€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€thusÏcannot€form€the€basis€for€an€action€against€her.ÌÌà àà àAlt,€meanwhile,€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€limiting€discovery,€but€in€fact€restrictedÏonly€discovery€of€irrelevant€matters.€€He€also€contends€that€aÏclaim€of€malicious€prosecution€is€not€appropriate€against€anÏattorney€under€these€circumstances,€and€that€the€evidenceÏdemonstrates€that€he€acted€with€probable€cause€and€without€malice.ÌÌà àà àDiversified€has€not€filed€a€brief€or€otherwise€made€anÏappearance€on€this€appeal.ÌÌà@ àIV.€€òòApplicable€LawóóÌÌà àà àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€for€malicious€prosecution,€aÏplaintiff€must€establish€the€following€elements:€1)€a€prior€actionÏwas€instituted€without€probable€cause;€2)€the€defendant€broughtÍsuch€action€with€malice;€and€3)€the€prior€action€was€terminated€inÏthe€plaintiffððs€favor.€€ò òòòRoberts€v.€Federal€Express€Corp.óóó ó,€842ÏS.W.2d€246,€247„48€(Tenn.€1992);€ò òòòChristian€v.€Lapidusóóó ó,€833ÏS.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€1992);€ò òòòLewis€v.€Allenóóó ó,€698€S.W.2d€58,€59Ï(Tenn.€1985);€ò òòòLantroop€v.€Morelandóóó ó,€849€S.W.2d€793,€797Ï(Tenn.App.€1992).× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà àà àProbable€cause€exists€when€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏare€sufficient€to€lead€an€ordinarily€prudent€person€to€believe€anÏindividual€is€guilty€of€the€conduct€alleged.€€ò òòòRobertsóóó ó,€842€S.W.2dÏat€248.€€The€existence€of€probable€cause€does€not€depend€upon€aÏsubjective€assessment€of€the€defendantððs€mental€state,€but€insteadÏis€ð ðdetermined€solely€from€an€objective€examination€of€theÏsurrounding€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòò òIdó óóó.€€It€is€now€clear€thatÏsuch€a€determination€is€a€question€for€the€trier€of€fact.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€atÏ249.ÌÌà àà àThe€element€of€malice€generally€addresses€the€subjectiveÏmental€state€of€the€defendant.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€248.€€However,€theÏexistence€of€malice€can€be€inferred€from€the€fact€that€a€lawsuitÏwas€brought€without€probable€cause.€€òòò òLewis€v.€Williamsó óóó,€618ÏS.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1981);€ò òòòCarter€v.€Bakerððs€Food€RiteÏStoreóóó ó,€787€S.W.2d€4,€8€(Tenn.App.€1989);€ò òòòKerney€v.€Aetna€Cas.€&ÏSur.€Co.óóó ó,€648€S.W.2d€247,€252€(Tenn.App.€1982).× ƒ? ××  ×€€This€court€hasÏalso€held€that€in€actions€for€malicious€prosecution,€a€showing€ofÏa€lack€of€probable€cause€will€give€rise€to€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€of€malice.€€òòò òSullivan€v.€Youngó óóó,€678€S.W.2d€906,€911Ï(Tenn.App.€1984);€òòò òKerneyó óóó,€648€S.W.2d€at€252.€€This€is€aÏpresumption€of€fact.€€ò òòòLewisó óóó,€618€S.W.2d€at€303.€€The€issue€ofÏmalice€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendants€acknowledge€that€the€third€element€ofÏWilliamsðð€claim€„„€termination€of€the€prior€suit€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff€„„€is€satisfied€in€this€case.€€It€is€clear€that€theÏvoluntary€termination€by€non„suit€of€a€complaint€satisfies€theÏrequirement€of€a€favorable€termination,€provided€such€terminationÍis€not€in€connection€with€a€settlement€or€compromise,€orÏundertaken€in€order€to€re„file€the€action€in€a€different€forum.€Ïòòò òChristianóóó ó,€833€S.W.2d€at€74.ÌÌà àà àWith€regard€to€malicious€prosecution€claims€broughtÏagainst€attorneys€responsible€for€filing€the€underlying€lawsuit,Ïthe€general€rule€is€that€an€attorney€is€not€immune€from€liabilityÏsolely€by€reason€of€his€status.€€òòSeeóó€Debra€E.€Wax,€Annotation,ÏòòLiability€of€Attorney,€Acting€for€Client,€for€MaliciousÏProsecutionóó,€46€A.L.R.4th€249,€259€(1986).€€Tennessee€recognizesÏthis€general€proposition.€€òòSeeóó€ò òòòEvans€v.€Perkeyóóó ó,€647€S.W.2d€636Ï(Tenn.App.€1982),€and€ò òòòPeerman€v.€Sidicaneóóó ó,€605€S.W.2d€242Ï(Tenn.App.€1980).€ÌÌà@ àV.€€òòAnalysisóóÌÌà@ àA.€€òòWilliamsðð€Claim€Against€DiversifiedóóÌÌà àà àAs€noted€earlier,€Diversified€did€not€file€a€brief€inÏconnection€with€this€appeal.€€It€apparently€relies€on€the€recordÏto€support€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àà àWe€turn€first€to€the€element€of€probable€cause.€In€theÏunderlying€action,€Diversified€alleged€that€RAILE€and€itsÏindividual€members,€including€Williams,€had€wrongfully€interferedÏwith€its€business€relations.€€Diversified€claimed€that€the€RAILEÏmembers€had€made€false€and€malicious€statements€in€order€to€obtainÏa€denial€of€its€application€to€expand€the€landfill,€and€had€soughtÏto€destroy€its€business€by€influencing€others€to€breach€contractsÏor€cease€doing€business€with€Diversified.€€However,€neitherÏDiversifiedððs€complaint,€nor€the€affidavits€and€exhibitsÏaccompanying€its€motions€for€summary€judgment,€contain€anyÏspecific€allegations€regarding€Williams.€€Furthermore,€none€of€theÏwitnesses€deposed€by€Williams€testified€as€to€any€specificÏknowledge€of€Williamsðð€involvement.ÌÌà àà àGeorge€Randi,€who€was€President€and€Chief€ExecutiveÏOfficer€of€Diversified€at€the€time€of€the€events€in€question,Ïtestified€in€his€deposition€that€he€had€been€ð ðtoldðð€that€WilliamsÏhad€made€certain€statements.€€However,€he€could€not€elaborate€onÏthe€statements€and€did€not€recall€who€had€given€him€thisÏinformation.€€He€also€testified€that€he€had€assumed€that€ifÏWilliams€was€a€member€of€RAILE,€then€she€was€necessarily€involvedÏin€its€opposition€to€the€landfill.€€Likewise,€Ralph€Deporter,€aÍmember€of€Diversifiedððs€Board€of€Directors€at€the€time,€testifiedÏin€his€deposition€that€he€was€unsure€whether€Williams€hadÏparticipated€in€RAILEððs€opposition€to€the€landfill€expansion€priorÏto€the€filing€of€Diversifiedððs€lawsuit€against€her.€€He€alsoÏstated€that€he€had€no€information€that€would€lead€him€to€believeÏthat€Williams€had€made€any€false€statements€regardingÏDiversifiedððs€compliance€with€its€landfill€permit.€€By€the€sameÏtoken,€Paul€Ray€Seaton,€a€shareholder€and€former€officer€ofÏDiversified,€testified€in€his€deposition€that€he€had€only€seenÏWilliamsðð€name€in€the€paper€or€heard€it€come€up€in€connection€withÏRAILE.€€Like€the€other€witnesses,€Seaton€could€offer€no€specificÏtestimony€regarding€Williamsðð€involvement.ÌÌà àà àIn€opposition€to€Diversifiedððs€allegations,€WilliamsÏsubmitted€an€affidavit€in€which€she€states€that€she€was€notÏinvolved€in€RAILEððs€opposition€to€the€landfill€prior€to€the€filingÏof€Diversifiedððs€lawsuit€against€her.€€She€contends€that€she€madeÏno€statements€to€government€officials€or€the€press€and€that€sheÏattended€no€public€hearings€or€county€commission€meetings€prior€toÏthe€filing€of€Diversifiedððs€lawsuit.€€Williams€states€that€herÏonly€participation€in€the€opposition€to€the€landfill€consisted€ofÍattending€three€RAILE€meetings,€and€one€public€hearing€„„€all€inÏAugust,€1993,€well€after€Diversified€filed€its€action€against€her.ÌÌà àà àThus,€there€is€evidence€that€Williams€was€not€involvedÏin€RAILEððs€opposition€to€the€landfill€expansion€prior€to€theÏfiling€of€Diversifiedððs€suit,€and€that€she€did€not€make€anyÏstatements€regarding€Diversified€or€the€landfill€prior€to€the€timeÏthe€underlying€action€was€filed.€€Such€evidence€necessarily€raisesÏa€question€as€to€whether€Diversified€had€probable€cause€to€fileÏsuit€against€her.€€From€our€ð ðobjective€examination€of€theÏsurrounding€facts€and€circumstancesðð,€ò òòòRoberts€v.€FederalÏExpress€Corp.ó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€246,€248€(Tenn.€1992),€we€find€thatÏthere€is€an€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€an€ordinarilyÏprudent€person€would€have€been€led€to€believe€that€Williams€wasÏguilty€of€wrongful€interference€with€Diversifiedððs€businessÏinterests.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€The€facts€before€the€trial€court,€and€now€beforeÏus,€clearly€do€not€negate€the€element€of€lack€of€probable€cause.ÌÌà àà àWe€turn€next€to€the€element€of€malice.€€As€notedÏearlier,€the€element€of€malice€may€be€inferred€from€an€absence€ofÏprobable€cause.€€òòò òLewis€v.€Williamsó óóó,€618€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.Ï1981);€ò òòòCarter€v.€Bakerððs€Food€Rite€Storeóóó ó,€787€S.W.2d€4,€8Í(Tenn.App.€1989);€ò òòòKerney€v.€Aetna€Cas.€&€Sur.€Co.óóó ó,€648€S.W.2dÏ247,€252€(Tenn.App.€1982).€€Thus,€if€there€are€issues€of€disputedÏfact€in€the€instant€case€regarding€the€existence€of€probableÏcause,€it€follows€that€the€issue€of€malice€is€still€a€matter€ofÏdisputed€fact€by€virtue€of€the€aforesaid€inference.€€It€is€clearÏthat€the€facts€before€us€would€support€a€finding€that€DiversifiedÏdid€not€have€probable€cause€to€sue€Williams.€€This€gives€rise€to€aÏpresumption€of€malice.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€reveals€that€Diversified€failed€to€negate€anyÏone€of€the€elements€of€Williamsðð€claim€of€malicious€prosecution.€ÏTaking€ð ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceðð€in€favor€ofÏWilliams,€and€allowing€ð ðall€reasonable€inferencesðð€in€her€favor,Ïò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993),€we€find€thatÏsummary€judgment€for€Diversified€is€not€appropriate.ÌÌà@ àB.€€òòWilliamsðð€Claim€Against€AltóóÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏAlt.€€Alt€contends€that€Williams€satisfied€neither€the€probableÏcause€nor€the€malice€element€of€her€claim.€€Alt€also€maintainsÏthat€ð ðmalicious€prosecution€is€a€cause€of€action€against€a€party,Ínot€an€attorneyðð;€however,€he€has€cited€no€authority,€nor€have€weÏfound€any,€to€indicate€that€an€attorney€is€immune€from€such€aÏclaim.€€As€we€have€indicated€earlier,€the€case€authority€is€to€theÏcontrary.€€òòSee€ò òEvansó óóó,€647€S.W.2d€at€642;€ò òòòPeermanó óóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€ƒ245.ÌÌà àà àAllowing€ð ðall€reasonable€inferencesðð€in€WilliamsððsÏfavor,€ò òòòByrdóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210,€we€conclude€that€the€recordÏreflects€material€disputes€as€to€both€probable€cause€and€malice.€ÏThe€existence€of€probable€cause€does€not€depend€on€AltððsÏsubjective€mental€state,€but€instead€requires€ð ðan€objectiveÏdetermination€of€the€reasonableness€of€[his]€conduct€in€light€ofÏthe€surrounding€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€ò òòòRobertsó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€atÏ248.€€He€therefore€cannot€negate€the€lack€of€probable€causeÏelement€of€Ms.€Williamsðð€claim€simply€by€contending€that€he€filedÏthe€action€on€behalf€of€his€client€and€in€good€faith.€€AsÏdetermined€from€the€surrounding€facts€and€circumstances,€issues€ofÏfact€remain€regarding€whether€an€ordinarily€prudent€attorney€wouldÏhave€proceeded€to€file€the€instant€action€against€her.€€òòò òId.ó óóóÌÌà àà àThe€element€of€malice,€on€the€other€hand,€does€involve€aÏquestion€of€subjective€intent.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€However,€as€with€the€claimÍagainst€Diversified,€there€is€an€issue€as€to€whether€probableÏcause€existed;€since€an€absence€of€probable€cause€gives€rise€to€anÏinference€of€malice,€òòò òLewisó óóó,€618€S.W.2d€at€303,€ò òòòCarteróóó ó,€787€S.W.2dÏat€8,€òòò òKerneyó óóó,€648€S.W.2d€at€252,€factual€disputes€regarding€maliceÏremain€as€well.ÌÌà àà àAlt€filed€an€affidavit€in€this€case€in€which€he€deniedÏð ðthat€he€had€any€ill„will€or€animosity€against€any€of€theÏplaintiffs.ðð€€His€affidavit€consists€of€a€series€of€sworn€denialsÏwith€respect€to€the€allegations€against€him€in€the€complaint.€ÏIllustrative€of€these€denials€is€paragraph€13€of€the€affidavit:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àAffiant€denies€that€he€acted€maliciously€orÏoppressively€in€initiating€and€prosecuting€theÏprior€lawsuit€and€its€appeal.€€He€furtherÏdenies€that€he€had€any€intent€to€punish,Ïintimidate,€vex,€harass,€annoy,€injure,€orÏdamage€any€of€the€plaintiffs€or€sought€toÏfrighten€or€intimidate€them€in€any€manner.ÌÌÌÌÓÓOn€the€issue€of€probable€cause,€Altððs€affidavit€contains€sparseÏfacts:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àAffiant€became€aware€through€media€coverageÏthat€Diversified€in€connection€with€itsÏapplication€for€expansion€of€its€landfill€wasÏbeing€opposed€by€citizens€of€McMinn€County€whoÍwere€residents€in€the€vicinity€of€theÏlandfill.ÌÌà àà8 àAny€subsequent€information€learned€concerningÏthe€name€of€the€group,€their€members,€etc.,Ïwould€all€be€subject€to€the€attorney/clientÏprivilege.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àAltððs€affidavit€did€not€present€facts€showing€that€heÏhad€probable€cause€to€file€the€underlying€action.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€That€affidavitÏcertainly€was€not€sufficient€to€establish€undisputed€factsÏregarding€the€issue€of€probable€cause€as€to€Williams€once€sheÏfiled€an€affidavit€reflecting€òònoóó€involvement€in€the€matters€whichÏprompted€the€filing€of€the€underlying€action.ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€secure€summary€judgment,€Alt€had€to€negateÏat€least€one€element€of€Williamsðð€claim.€€He€did€not€show€that€heÏhad€probable€cause€to€institute€an€action€against€her€on€hisÏclientððs€behalf.€€With€no€facts€in€Altððs€affidavit€showingÏprobable€cause,€and€with€Williams€attesting€to€a€total€lack€ofÏinvolvement€in€the€matters€alleged€in€the€underlying€lawsuit,€weÏare€left€with€only€one€conclusion€„„€a€total€lack€of€probableÏcause€which€in€turn€gives€rise€to€an€inference€of€malice.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€our€analysis€proceeds€along€the€followingÏlines.€€Williams€did€not€participate€in€any€of€the€matters€uponÏwhich€the€underlying€action€was€based€and€did€not€make€anyÏactionable€statements.€€We€know€this€because€she€says€so€in€herÏaffidavit€and,€as€the€nonmoving€party,€she€is€entitled€to€our€fullÏbelief.€€While€she€was€not,€in€fact,€involved€in€any€actionableÏconduct,€we€must€still€determine€if€Diversified€and/or€Alt€wereÏpossessed€of€facts€that€would€have€led€an€ordinarily€prudentÏperson€to€believe€she€was€guilty€of€such€conduct.€€NeitherÏDiversified€nor€Alt€have€placed€before€us€any€real€facts€showingÏWilliamsðð€involvement.€€This,€plus€her€non„involvement€in€fact,Ïpresents€a€picture€of€no€probable€cause.€€A€lack€of€probable€causeÏleads€to€a€presumption€of€malice.€€Thus,€the€record€before€usÏpresents€a€lack€of€probable€cause€and€malice€„„€the€remainingÏelements€of€an€action€for€malicious€prosecution.ÌÌà àà àWhile€an€attorney€can€have€probable€cause€to€file€aÏlawsuit€and€thereby€avoid€a€malicious€prosecution€action€or€anÏabuse€of€process€action,× ƒA ××  ×€òòsee€ò òEvansó óóó,€647€S.W.2d€at€642,€it€isÍlikewise€clear€that€his€or€her€involvement€can€present€a€factualÏscenario€supporting€a€conclusion€that€the€attorney€was€guilty€ofÏactionable€conduct,€òòsee€ò òPeermanó óóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€245.€€In€thisÏcase,€we€do€not€know€the€facts,€if€any,€that€prompted€Alt€toÏbelieve€that€Williams€was€guilty€of€the€matters€alleged€in€theÏunderlying€lawsuit.€€Since€this€information€is€not€now€availableÏto€us,€Alt€is€not€entitled€to€a€dismissal€of€this€action.ÌÌà@ àC.€€òòTrial€Courtððs€Limitation€of€DiscoveryóóÌÌà àà àHaving€determined€that€the€papers€before€us€do€notÏjustify€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€either€of€the€defendants,Çwe€pretermit€the€appellantððs€alternative€basis€for€attackingÏsummary€judgment,€i.e.,€the€alleged€failure€of€the€trial€court€toÏallow€additional€discovery€before€deciding€the€defendantsðð€motionsÏfor€summary€judgment.€€We€do€not€believe€it€appropriate€for€us€toÏdecide€whether,€and€to€what€extent,€additional€discovery€isÏappropriate€in€this€case.€€Those€issues€are€best€left€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€future€determination.ÌÌà@ àVI.€€òòConclusionóóÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€granting€Diversified€and€Alt€summary€judgment€as€to€theÏplaintiff€Williams.€€That€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€isÏhereby€vacated.€€In€so€holding,€we€express€no€opinion€as€to€theÏmerits€of€either€claim.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÏappellees.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€suchÏfurther€proceedings€as€are€appropriate,€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.