WPC # VU:a % 0(w@4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^ 0h0 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d U*u B) DC AM Xv~Ov B D3 0@ AO0 0DE D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH,rAZ"Arial RegularX($ {DDDDӀD 3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd-C << G !  #d#     YYY FILEDXJuly2,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  d%%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .          \RA'\\RA'\7WXdd7    ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEHELENS.ROGERS,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019611CV00500̜R !A1-j|0`  `@RߛVS.      )      ) DavidsonCircuit      ) No.95C1848TOME.WATTS,JR.,   )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ DISSENTINGOPINION   Irespectfullydissentfromthemajorityopinionontwogrounds:(1)probablecauseand(2)damagesneitherofwhichispresentedwithmuchclarityinthebriefs.ButtheissuesareofsuchimportancetothepracticeoflawinthisstatethatIfeeltheyshouldbeaddressed.  Mr.WattshadajudgmentagainstMs.Rogersclient.Whilethecasewasonappealtheyagreedtosettleit,andMs.Rogersrepresentedthatthemoneywouldbewiredtohertrustaccount aroundthefirstofnextweek.Withthatassurance,Mr.Wattspersuadedajudgmentcreditorofhisclienttoreleaseanexecutionbypromisingthatthemoneywouldshortlybeavailabletopaythejudgment.Whenthesettlementfellthrough,Mr.Wattswassuedbythecreditorwhohadreleasedtheexecution.Mr.WattsfiledathirdpartyclaimagainstMs.Rogersforajudgmentagainstherintheeventhewasheldliable.  Atthispoint,whowoulddenythatMr.WattshadprobablecausetosueMs.Rogersforindemnity?Ms.Rogersconcedes(andthetrialjudgefound)thatMr.Wattshadprobablecausetosueherforindemnitybasedonhernegligentmisrepresentations.(Shedisputesanynegligenceonherpart,butwhetherMr.Wattswouldhavebeensuccessfulinhisactionisquiteanothermatterfromwhetherhehadprobablecausetobringit.)Unfortunately,Mr.Wattsdidnotsuefornegligence.HeallegedthattherepresentationsmadebyMs.Rogerswerefraudulent.Atthetrial,thetrialjudgedeniedMr.WattsmotiontoϜamendhiscomplainttoallegenegligence.  Irealizethatanallegationoffraudbyalawyeragainstanotherlawyerisaseriousallegationandshouldnotbetakenlightly.But,anallegationoffraudisjustasseriouswhenlevelledagainstanyone.Everyunprovencase,however,shouldnotresultinaclaimofmaliciousprosecution.  Inordertoestablishthelackofprobablecauseininstitutingacivilproceeding,itmustappearthatthesuitwasfiledprimarilyforapurposeotherthanthatofsecuringtheproperadjudicationoftheclaiminwhichtheproceedingsarebased.Budav.CasselBros.,Inc.,568S.W.2d628(Tenn.App.1978)(citingRestatementofTorts,Second,674).Inmyviewadefendantinamaliciousprosecutioncasehasestablishedadefenseifheprovesthathehadprobablecausetoseekthereliefinvolvedintheoriginalaction;heisnotexposedtoliabilityifhefailstoprovethetheoryheusesinseekingtherelief.Asimpleexamplewillillustratethedifficultycreatedbyholdingotherwise.AssumethatunderourliberalrulesofpleadingMr.Wattshadpledhiscaseunderthealternativetheoriesoffraudandnegligentmisrepresentation.SeeRule8.02(2),Tenn.R.Civ.P.Ifthetrialjudgedismissedthefraudclaimandenteredjudgmentonthenegligenceclaim,wouldMr.Wattsbefacinganactionformaliciousprosecutionbecausehedidnotprovetheelementsoffraud?Idonotthinkheshouldbe.  Thesecondreasonformydissentflowsfromthefirst.ThedamagesawardedtoMs.Rogersallrelatedtothefactthatshehadbeensuednottothefactthatshehadbeensuedforfraud.Sheprovedtheattorneysfeesincurredindefendingtheoriginalclaimandthatshehadtopayahigherrateofinterestonaloanbecausesherevealedontheloanapplicationthatshehadbeensued.ThetrialjudgespecificallyfoundthatMs.RogershadnotsufferedanydamagetoherϜreputation.Idonotthinkshehassufferedanydamagespeculiarlyrelatedtothefraudclaim.  Therefore,Idissent.̛̜       ___________________________       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE