’WPC@ …# VUNa %Æ 0(µLŻb) w@1 4q … ” 0lœ 0D 0JL 0T– 0^ź 0hH 0r° 0|" 0†ž 0$ 1u“ 0d) BU>ŖB)čDC AMTU*” Ėv~×vÓU D3( 0@[ AO›Ęź 0D° D/ō B#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTČŚŲŚŚŲČŚ0nLLĪ(ÖĆ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($””C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ł- {E|}E~E€e‚ eƒӀDŅ \O3|x((3üŻ$¤¤Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cž’ << G’’< Œ 9p`(Arial Ż ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŌ€&ŌŌ€&ŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€&XŌĢĢJuly€2,€1997ĢĢCecil€W.€CrowsonĢAppellate€Court€ClerkŌ  Ōó óPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  h HD: Geneva ŅŅ  h HD: Geneva Ņ '’’dxd("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŃ€ŃŃ7€v5XXdģdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ#` Ü` ä œ ’X#Ó›Ž ŽĢHELEN€S.€ROGERS,ą ą)Ģą ąą ą)Ģą ąPlaintiff/Appellee,ą ą)ą ąAppeal€No.Ģą ąą ą)ą ą01„A„01„9611„CV„00500Ģv.ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ą)ą ąDavidson€Circuit̜Ł€€ŁßR€%'$A1-j|F¾` ē `€€@’RߛTOM€E.€WATTS,€JR.,ą ą)ą ąNo.ą ą95C„1848Ģą ąą ą)Ģą ąDefendant/Appellant.ą ą)ĢĢĢÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢĢMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEĢĢĢAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYĢĢAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEĢĢĢTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€BROTHERS,€JUDGEĢÓ  ÓĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢHELEN€SFIKAS€ROGERS,€pro€seĢSuite€1550ĢSunTrust€Bank€BuildingĢ201€Fourth€Avenue€NorthĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ĢĢĢTHOMAS€E.€WATTS,€JR.,€pro€seĢ201€Fourth€Avenue€NorthĢSuite€1260ĢP.€O.€Box€198494ĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDĢÓ  ÓĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEĢ̜ņņÓ  ÓŌ€"„ŌOPINIONóó›ĢÓ  ÓĢÓ€ÓŌ€"¼Ōą ąThis€is€an€appeal€by€defendant/appellant,€Thomas€E.€Watts,€Jr.,€from€theĻdecision€of€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€finding€Mr.€Watts€liableĻfor€malicious€prosecution€and€awarding€plaintiff/appellee,€Helen€S.€Rogers,Ļ$18,000.00€in€damages.€€The€facts€out€of€which€this€matter€arose€are€as€follows.ĢĢą ąMr.€Watts€and€Mrs.€Rogers€are€attorneys€who€œwere€involved€in›€aĻlawsuit€before€the€United€States€District€Court.€€Mr.€Watts€represented€theĻplaintiffs€against€the€defendant,€Dr.€Kanza.€€The€court€entered€a€default€judgmentĻagainst€Dr.€Kanza,€and€the€parties€began€settlement€negotiations€with€theĻassistance€of€a€United€States€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€attorney.€€Mr.€RobertĻA.€Weaver€retained€Mrs.€Rogers€to€try€to€settle€the€case.ĢĢą ąOn€8€September€1992,€Mrs.€Rogers€received€a€fax€from€Mr.€WeaverĻwhich€stated€a€Harry€OššConnor€in€the€United€Kingdom€was€prepared€to€commitĻ$75,000.00€toward€a€final€settlement€of€all€claims€by€those€who€had€been€awardedĻa€judgment€against€Dr.€Kanza.€€Working€through€the€settlement€attorney,€Mrs.ĻRogers€and€Mr.€Watts€reached€a€settlement€on€behalf€of€their€clients.€€Pursuant€toĻthe€agreement,€Dr.€Kanza€was€to€pay€Mr.€Wattsšš€clients€$65,000.00.€€Mr.€WattsĻconfirmed€the€partiesšš€agreement€by€letter€dated€14€September€1992.ĢĢą ąNothing€in€the€settlement€agreement€or€the€letter€set€a€deadline€forĶpayment€of€the€monies,€but€Mr.€Watts€sought€payment€before€24€September€1992Ļin€the€14€September€1992€letter.€€On€16€September€1992,€Mrs.€Rogers€sent€Mr.ĻWatts€a€letter€and€enclosed€the€proposed€settlement€documents€Mr.€Watts€hadĻrequested.€€The€letter€read:€€š šThe€settlement€monies€are€to€be€wire„transferredĻinto€my€trust€account€around€the€first€of€next€week€and€I€will€let€you€know€whenĻwe€can€complete€the€settlement.šš€€When€the€money€had€not€arrived€on€22ĻSeptember€1992,€Mr.€Watts€wrote€Mrs.€Rogers€and€stated:€€š šObviously€this€is€notĻa€matter€within€your€control,€but€my€previous€dealings€with€Mr.€Kanza€haveĻdestroyed€all€belief€that€he€is€a€man€of€his€word.€€If€someone€other€than€Kanza€isĻpaying€the€money,€based€on€their€performance€to€date,€they€are€of€the€same€boltĻof€cloth.šš€€Mr.€Watts€further€stated€he€would€disavow€the€settlement€if€the€fundsĻwere€not€delivered€to€him€by€the€next€day.ĢĢą ąMrs.€Rogers€received€a€fax€from€Robert€Weaver€advising€her€that€Mr.ĻOššConnorššs€assistant€had€stated€that€the€delay€in€transferring€the€funds€was€due€toĻa€drastic€drop€in€the€English€pound€and€that€OššConnor€was€meeting€with€his€bankĻand€would€try€to€get€all€of€it€sorted€out.€€Mr.€Weaver€stated€he€thought€Mr.ĻOššConnor€would€come€through€with€the€funds.€€Mrs.€Rogers€conveyed€theĻmessage€to€Mr.€Watts€concerning€the€drop€in€currency€and€the€fact€the€settlementĻmonies€could€not€be€paid€at€that€time.€€Mr.€Watts€deemed€this€š šunacceptable.ššĢĢą ąMr.€OššConnor€faxed€a€letter€dated€24€September€1992€directly€to€Mr.ĻWatts€which€stated:€€š šI€cannot€honestly€state€that€the€English€pound€situation€wasĻthe€main€cause€because€of€the€drop€in€exchange€rates.€€This€was€not€the€majorĻcause€of€the€delay,€but€the€fact€we€posted€several€irrevocable€letters€of€credit€inĻour€name€as€security€based€on€profit€returns€of€subject€contract.šš€€On€25ĻSeptember€Mrs.€Rogers€acknowledged€the€direct€conversations€Mr.€OššConnorĶhad€with€Mr.€Watts€and€attempted€to€confirm€that€the€original€settlement€wasĻpossible€as€long€as€it€was€completed€in€approximately€two€weeks.€€ĢĢą ąMrs.€Rogers€learned€from€a€letter€that€Mr.€Watts€had€promised€theĻsettlement€monies€to€another€person€on€behalf€of€his€client€and€that€Mr.€Watts€hadĻtold€the€creditor€€the€money€would€be€available€by€24€September€1992.€€Mr.ĻWattsšš€letter€further€stated:€€š šIn€my€view,€I€do€not€believe€the€creditor€has€anyĻclaim€against€me€personally,€but€in€the€unlikely€and€unfortunate€event€that€I€amĻsued,€of€course,€I€will€have€no€option€other€than€to€pass€the€responsibility€on€toĻyou,€and€presumably,€you€would€want€to€pass€it€on€to€your€clients.šš€€Mrs.€RogersĻresponded€to€this€letter€that€no€definite€payment€date€had€ever€been€given.€€Mr.ĻWatts€advised€Mrs.€Rogers€that€he€had€been€sued€in€a€letter€dated€3€NovemberĻ1992.€€He€enclosed€a€copy€of€a€general€sessions€warrant€and€stated,€š š[a]s€yet,€IĻhave€not€decided€what€my€response€will€be,€but€I€thought€I€ought€to€keep€you€upĻto€date€on€this€development.šš€€Ģ€Ģą ąThe€general€sessions€court€found€Mr.€Watts€guilty€of€negligence€andĻentered€judgment€in€favor€of€the€third€party€creditor.€€Mr.€Watts€appealed€to€theĻSumner€County€Circuit€Court€and€filed€a€third€party€complaint€against€Mrs.ĻRogers€for€fraud€and€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€At€the€end€of€the€proof,€Mr.ĻWatts€moved€to€amend€the€third„party€complaint€to€include€a€claim€of€negligentĻmisrepresentation.€€The€circuit€court€found€Mr.€Watts€guilty€of€negligence,Ļdenied€the€motion€to€amend€the€complaint,€and€dismissed€the€third„partyĻcomplaint.€€Mr.€Watts€appealed€to€this€court€which€reversed€and€dismissed€theĻjudgment€against€Mr.€Watts€and€dismissed€as€moot€Mr.€Wattsššs€appeal€of€theĻdismissal€of€the€third„party€complaint.€€ņņņ ņMcFarlin€v.€Wattsó óóó,€895€S.W.2d€687Ļ(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€The€third„party€creditor€filed€an€application€for€permissionĶto€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€The€supreme€court€denied€theĻapplication€on€6€March€1995.ĢĢą ąIn€the€meantime,€Mrs.€Rogers€filed€a€complaint€for€maliciousĻprosecution€against€Mr.€Watts€in€the€Davidson€County€Circuit€Court€on€14ĻNovember€1994.€€Mr.€Watts€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€and€argued€the€courtĻshould€dismiss€the€complaint€because€the€case€which€formed€the€basis€of€the€claimĻwas€not€final.€€The€court€granted€the€motion.ĢĢą ąMrs.€Rogers€re„filed€her€complaint€in€the€Davidson€County€CircuitĻCourt€on€9€June€1995.€€Mr.€Watts€moved€to€strike€portions€of€the€complaintĻinvolving€dealings€between€the€parties€in€1983.€€From€1980€to€1983,€Mrs.ĻRogers,€other€attorneys,€and€Mr.€Watts€shared€office€space.€€The€attorneys€hadĻagreed€Mr.€Watts€would€pay€the€rent€and€the€remaining€attorneys,€including€Mrs.ĻRogers,€would€pay€the€other€office€expenses.€€In€1983,€the€other€attorneys€andĻMrs.€Rogers€learned€Mr.€Watts€had€not€paid€the€rent€for€many€months€and€theĻlandlord€had€sent€an€eviction€notice.€€Mrs.€Rogers€and€the€other€attorneys€movedĻout€at€the€end€of€the€next€month€and€formed€their€own€association.€€The€courtĻdenied€the€motion€to€strike€these€facts€from€the€complaint.€€Mr.€Watts€then€filed€aĻmotion€in€limine€objecting€to€any€evidence€of€the€partiesšš€dealings€as€being€toĻremote€and€not€tending€to€prove€an€essential€element€of€the€claim.€€The€courtĻtook€the€motion€under€advisement€and€later€denied€it.€€After€a€trial,€the€courtĻawarded€Mrs.€Rogers€a€judgment€against€Mr.€Watts€in€the€amount€of€$18,000.00.€€ĢĢą ąOn€appeal,€Mr.€Watts€raises€two€issues.€€First,€he€contends€Mrs.€RogersĻfailed€to€prove€each€element€of€her€claim€for€malicious€prosecution€and€second,Ļhe€argues€the€court€erred€when€it€allowed€evidence€of€the€partiesšš€dealings€in€theĶearly€1980's.€€We€first€discuss€Mr.€Wattsššs€issue€of€whether€Mrs.€Rogers€carriedĻher€burden€of€proof€as€to€her€cause€of€action€for€malicious€prosecution.ĢĢą ąThis€court€has€set€out€the€elements€necessary€to€establish€a€claim€forĻmalicious€prosecution.€€ĢÓÓą8 ąIn€deciding€a€malicious€prosecution€case,€the€trier€of€fact€needĻonly€focus€on€three€issues:€€(1)€were€the€underlying€judicialĻproceedings€initiated€by€the€defendant€finally€terminated€in€theĻplaintiffššs€favor,€€would€the€facts€and€circumstances€known€toĻthe€defendant€at€the€time€he€or€she€initiated€the€judicialĻproceedings€have€led€an€ordinarily€prudent€person€to€believeĻthat€the€person€accused€was€guilty€of€the€crime€charged,€andĻ(3)€whether€the€defendant€initiated€the€judicial€proceedingsĻagainst€the€plaintiff€with€malice.€€ĢĢņņņ ņLantroop€v.€Morelandó óóó,€849€S.W.2d€793,€797€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(citationsĻomitted).ĢĢĢņ ņÓ  ÓFinalityó óĢĢÓ€ÓÓ  Óą ąThe€underlying€judicial€proceeding€was€finally€terminated€in€Mrs.ĻRogersšš€favor.€€This€court€dismissed€the€underlying€judicial€proceeding€onĻappeal.€€€Additionally,€Mr.€Watts,€in€response€to€a€question€from€the€trial€judgeĻin€the€instant€case,€admitted€he€had€abandoned€his€attempt€to€proceed€on€theĻfraudulent€misrepresentation€cause€of€action.€€A€court€may€consider€abandonmentĻof€a€cause€of€action€when€determining€finality.€€ņ ņņņSee€Christian€v.€Lapidusó óóó,€833ĻS.W.2d€71,€74€(Tenn.€1992).€€ĢĢņ ņÓ  ÓProbable€Causeó óĢĢÓ  Óą ąMr.€Watts€bases€his€probable€cause€argument€on€the€claim€that€aĻcondition€of€the€settlement€was€availability€of€the€money.€€Mr.€Watts€admits,Ķhowever,€that€when€he€sued€Mrs.€Rogers€he€assumed€Mrs.€Rogers€knew€of€thisĻcondition,€but€Mr.€Watts€made€this€demand€to€Mr.€Jones,€Mrs.€Rogersšš€partner,Ļin€earlier€negotiations€prior€to€Mrs.€Rogersšš€involvement€in€the€case.€€Moreover,ĻMr.€Jones€unconditionally€denied€he€had€such€a€conversation€with€Mr.€Watts,€andĻthe€trial€court€resolved€this€credibility€issue€in€favor€of€Mrs.€Rogers.€€Also,€Mr.ĻMcFall,€the€settlement€attorney,€denied€Mr.€Wattsšš€claim€and€stated€š šI€haveĻabsolutely€no€recollection€that€Tom€Watts€ever€made€an€issue€of€the€availabilityĻor€not€of€settlement€funds.šš€€He€further€stated€he€did€not€recall€Mr.€WattsĻrequiring€the€money€be€in€Mrs.€Rogersšš€escrow€account€as€a€condition€ofĻnegotiating€a€settlement.ĢĢą ąMr.€Watts€contends€in€his€brief€Mrs.€Rogersšš€course€of€conduct€wasĻfraudulent.€€This€contention€flies€in€the€face€of€the€requirements€for€fraud€underĻthe€laws€of€this€state.€€Mr.€Watts€testified€in€the€instant€case€that€after€the€generalĻsessions€courtššs€judgment€was€entered€against€him€he€reviewed€the€situation,Ļresearched€the€law,€and€concluded€Mrs.€Rogersšš€representations€were€fraudulentĻunder€the€law.ĢĢą ąš šFraud€is€never€presumed€in€the€absence€of€a€confidential€relationshipĻand€the€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€party€asserting€the€fraud.šš€€ņ ņņņPiccadilly€SquareĻv.€Intercontinental€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€782€S.W.2d€178,€184€(Tenn.€1989).€€AĻplaintiff€must€clearly€prove€allegations€of€fraud.€€ņ ņņņPipkin€v.€Lentzó óóó,€49€Tenn.ĻApp.€206,€222,€354€S.W.2d€87,€94€(1961)€(citing€ņ ņņņBevins€v.€Livesayó óóó,€32€Tenn.ĻApp.€1,€8,€221€S.W.2d€106,€109,€(1949)).€€ĢÓÓą8 ąIn€order€to€sustain€a€cause€of€action€for€fraudulentĻmisrepresentation,€the€plaintiff€must€show€that:€€1)€theĻdefendant€made€a€representation€of€an€existing€or€past€fact;€2)Ļthe€representation€was€false€when€made;€3)€the€representationĻwas€in€regard€to€a€material€fact;€4)€the€false€representation€wasĶmade€either€knowingly€or€without€belief€in€its€truth€orĻrecklessly;€5)€plaintiff€reasonably€relied€on€the€misrepresentedĻmaterial€fact;€6)€€plaintiff€suffered€damage€as€a€result€of€theĻmisrepresentation.€€ņ ņņņĢĢÓ€ÓMetropolitan€Govššt€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.€McKinneyó óóó,Ļ852€S.W.2d€233,€237€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Mr.€Watts€admitted€when€questionedĻby€the€trial€court€that€this€was€the€law.ĢĢą ąAt€best,€any€representation€made€by€Mrs.€Rogers€concerned€a€futureĻfact€as€to€when€settlement€monies€were€to€be€transferred€into€her€trust€account.€ĻThe€trial€judge€found€Mr.€Watts€did€not€have€any€reasonable€grounds€upon€whichĻto€conclude€Mrs.€Rogersšš€statements€were€fraudulent.€€The€trial€court€stated€š štheĻevidence€simply€did€not€support€such€a€finding€but,€in€fact,€the€evidence€wasĻdevoid€of€probable€cause.šš€€We€œagree.ĢĢą ąThe€dissent€cites€a€portion€of€ņņņ ņBuda€v.€Cassel€Brothers,€Inc.óóó ó€andĻconcludes€that€Mr.€Watts€is€not€liable€to€Mrs.€Rogers€because€Mr.€Watts€hadĻprobable€cause€š što€ņņseek€the€reliefóó€involved€in€the€original€action.šš€€WeĻrespectfully€disagree€with€this€conclusion.€€After€making€the€statement€quoted€inĻthe€dissent,€the€ņņņ ņBudaóóó ó€court€continued:ĢÓÓą8 ąIf€it€is€established€that€the€party€instituting€the€proceedingĻreasonably€believes€in€the€existence€of€the€facts€upon€which€theĻclaim€is€based€and€has€reasonable€belief€that€under€those€factsĻthe€claim€may€be€valid€or€has€reasonable€belief€in€relianceĻupon€the€advice€of€counsel,€sought€in€good€faith€and€givenĻafter€full€disclosure€of€all€relevant€facts€within€his€knowledgeĻand€information,€then€probable€cause€is€established.ĢÓ€ÓĢÓ€Óņņņ ņBuda€v.€Cassel€Bros.,€Inc.ó óóó,€568€S.W.2d€628,€631„32€(Tenn.€App.€1978).€€AsĻpreviously€explained,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€Mr.€Watts€could€not€and€did€notĻhave€a€reasonable€belief€that€the€claim€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation€could€beĶvalid.€€Thus,€there€was€no€probable€cause.Ģ›Ģņ ņÓ  ÓMaliceó óĢĢÓ  Óą ąMalice€may€be€inferred€in€a€malicious€prosection€case€from€the€lack€ofĻprobable€cause;€however,€here,€there€is€ample€evidence€from€which€the€courtĻcould€find€actual€malice.ĢĢą ąMrs.€Rogers€and€Mr.€Watts€practiced€law€together€from€1980€to€1983.€ĻThey€had€a€close€business€and€personal€relationship.€€Mrs.€Rogers€and€Mr.€WattsĻhad€a€confrontation€because€of€monetary€considerations,€and€Mrs.€Rogers€andĻfour€other€attorneys€who€had€been€practicing€with€Mr.€Watts€moved€out€of€theĻoffice€and€formed€their€own€association.€€Mrs.€Rogers€and€two€of€the€otherĻattorneys€testified€as€to€the€facts€surrounding€the€confrontation€and€to€the€fact€thatĻafter€they€left€the€office€the€relationship€between€them€and€Mr.€Watts€was€veryĻstrained.€€This€was€not€disputed€by€Mr.€Watts.€€ĢĢą ąIn€addition€to€the€strained€relationship,€Mr.€Watts€demonstrated€hisĻanger€over€the€failed€settlement.€€Mr.€Wattsšš€testimony€at€the€underlyingĻproceeding€revealed€his€frustration€over€the€fact€that€the€general€sessions€courtĻentered€a€judgment€against€him.ĢĢą ąMr.€Watts€testified€in€the€instant€case€that€the€idea€of€pursuing€a€third„party€complaint€against€Mrs.€Rogers€š šwas€not€taken€primarily€or€evenĻsecondarily€or€tertiarily€to€spite€her€or€cause€her€harassment€or€anything€of€thatĻsort,€it€was€taken€purely€to€protect€my€own€pocket.šš€€The€facts,€however,€suggestĻotherwise.€€Mr.€Watts€proceeded€under€the€theory€of€fraudulentĶmisrepresentation€even€though€he€could€have€obtained€the€same€recovery€had€heĻproved€negligent€misrepresentation.€€At€trial,€Mr.€Watts€admitted€he€could€haveĻobtained€the€same€recovery€under€negligent€misrepresentation€and€would€haveĻhad€a€lesser€burden.€€We€can€not€find€any€evidence€in€the€record€establishing€aĻreasonable€basis€for€Mr.€Wattsšš€decision€to€file€suit€based€on€fraudulentĻmisrepresentation€rather€than€negligent€misrepresentation.€€We€can€only€inferĻthere€was€no€reason€other€than€ill€will.€€Mr.€Watts€also€sought€punitive€damagesĻin€the€third„party€complaint€against€Mrs.€Rogers€which€is€more€than€the€mereĻindemnity€he€had€said€he€was€œseeking.ĢĢą ąThe€dissent€also€raises€an€issue€regarding€the€propriety€of€the€damageĻaward.€€Neither€party€raised€this€issue€on€appeal€and€we€do€not€feel€it€is€necessaryĻto€address€the€issue€sua€sponte.€€Nevertheless,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theĻdamage€award€was€proper.ĢÓÓą8 ąA€malicious€prosecution€action€is€one€to€recover€damagesĻcaused€by€a€judicial€proceeding€instituted€with€malice€andĻwithout€probable€cause.€€Such€damages€are€allowable€underĻsuch€an€action€as€proximately€result€to€the€plaintiff,€his€person,Ļproperty,€or€reputation€from€a€previous€unsuccessful€civil€orĻcriminal€proceeding€which€was€prosecuted€without€probableĻcause€and€with€malice.ĢÓ€ÓĢÓ€Óņņņ ņRyerson€v.€American€Sur.€Co.óóó ó,€213€Tenn.€182,€185,€373€S.W.2d€436,€437Ļ(Tenn.€1963).€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€damages€result€from€the€particularĻclaim;€only€that€the€result€from€the€institution€of€the€judicial€proceeding.€€TheĻdamages€awarded€to€Mrs.€Rogers€were€a€result€of€the€institution€of€the€actionĻagainst€her€by€Mr.€Watts.›ĢĢą ąOur€review€of€this€record€fails€to€reveal€any€error.€€Mr.€Wattsšš€firstĻissue€is€without€merit.€€Moreover,€we€have€considered€Mr.€Wattsšš€remainingĶissues€and€arguments€and€find€them€to€be€without€merit.€€ĢĢą ąTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respectsĻaffirmed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€any€further€necessaryĻproceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€defendant/appellant,€Tom€E.€Watts,€Jr.Ģ̜›ÓÓŌ€"XŌą ąą ą_______________________________________Ģą ąą ąSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢ_____________________________________ĢHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ĢĢĢBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE,ĢDISSENTING€IN€SEPARATE€OPINIONĢą ą