WPC '[rI6z;)KG^Tr=Ѥ;CvU6j]8˲SFv!rC=*0n^\ gEMs1[ָLf5>XQu0t*I~hWqdgrtYӗIñ8Ϥ/Aj0@Jj!ʍx;3>zM|y=d*Ð6tz=(U2#x\ n[ċbRv̠Fnb,lb ;P:_gꕄc#@Jz8I, Hks*|[4Kz RTXzDL9BsݦgTsGdILjo}ċ#<tMcI4{A?b}TᕾQHM+I^YM-f\jBDGJ xz1x{!.~,Yuh2~@vZ\sTIpeԝ8?7yrb#\ % UN# 0q U%N UNG  z % ^ w 4  *   | 0DBNhE[] m____vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvbvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 0~~~~ Bii 0 D3* D-] 0K AS( 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular e  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt  -s ],@3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1    _ԀX3XAppellantscomplaintinthepresentactionindicatesthatthefinaljudgmentwasissuedon  May5,1999.Intheirbrief,however,AppellantsappeartoagreewithAppelleesthatthefinal  judgmentwasactuallyissuedonMay4,1999.#XX3#  R$      3    _ԀX3XSection283104providesinpertinentpart,    28-3-104.Personaltortactions  8  (a)Thefollowingactionsshallbecommencedwithinone(1)yearafterthecauseof  actionaccrued:p   8  0`   (1)Actionsforlibel,forinjuriestotheperson,falseimprisonment,malicious `  prosecution,breachofmarriagepromise.P ` `  Tenn.CodeAnn.283104(a)(2000).#XX3#U  R$      2    _X3XԀBecausethethirtydayperiodforthenoticeofappealactuallyexpiredonJune5,1999due  tofactthatJune4,1999fellonaSunday,thepartiesapparentdisagreementonwhetherthefinal  judgmentwasissuedonMay4,1999orMay5,1999isofnoconsequence.#XX3~#- -(|G2$ !.8\dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\dd8     _  \83XXdd8  O@ '\INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#\'#Ԉ ,   MARCH5,2002Session X X3X\ #\XX3#EUGENEI._SELKER_ԀandMARK_SELKER_v.RUSSELLW.SAVORY,et  ` al.X3X\  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty 0  @@No.CT00293000;TheHonorableJohnR._McCarroll_,Judge  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200100823_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust13,_2002_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A     XXXX3Thisappealinvolvesadismissedclaimformaliciousprosecution.Theplaintiffsinthepresent  actionfiledtheircomplaintoneyearandthirtydaysafterafinaljudgmentwasissuedinthe   underlyingsuit.Thedefendantsrespondedbyfilingseparatemotionstodismissforfailuretostate  aclaim.Thetrialcourtsustainedthedefendantsmotions,holdingthattheplaintiffsclaimwas  barredbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Theplaintiffsappealedandnowarguethatthestatute ~ oflimitationsontheirclaimdidnotbegintorununtiltheapplicableperiodforappealinthe j underlyinglitigationexpired.Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt. V #X3XXXe##\XX3#X3X\Y Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  "r   #\X3 #X3X.\AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andDon R R.Ash,S.J.,joined. B ErichM.Shultz,Memphis,TN,forAppellants  " StewartC._Stallings_,Memphis,TN;JoeD.Barton,_Millington_,TN,forAppellees "!   OPINION #\XX3 #X3X\ $# #\XX3 #X3X\  XXXX3@FactsandProceduralHistory r&!%   OnMarch6,1998,Jerry_Lawler_ԀcausedtobefiledintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe J(#' WesternDistrictofTennessee,WesternDivision,acomplaintagainstEugeneI._Selker_ԀandMark 6)$( _Selker_Ԁ(EugeneandMark_Selker_Ԁwillbecollectivelyreferredtoas Appellants).Thecomplaint "*r%) soughtdamagesforvariouscausesofactionsuchasbreachofcontract,maliciousprosecution, +^&* tortiousinterferencewithacontract,defamation,andtheunlicencedpracticeoflaw.Mr._Lawler_s +J'+  attorneyswhopreparedandactuallyfiledthecomplaintwereRussellSavoryofthelawfirmGotten, ,6(, Wilson&SavoryandLeonard_Yelsky_Ԁofthelawfirm_Yelsky_Ԁ&_Lonardo_Ԁ(Mr.Savory,Mr._Yelsky_,  theirrespectivefirms,andMr._Lawler_Ԁwillbecollectivelyreferredtoas Appellees).     FollowingthefilingofananswerandcountercomplaintbyAppellants,thecasewas t transferredtotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofOhio,EasternDivision. ` Upontransfer,Appellantsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.Appelleesrespondedby L  withdrawingtheirclaimsforbreachofcontract,tortiousinterferencewithacontract,andthe 8  unlicencedpracticeoflaw,leavingonlytheirclaimsfordefamationandmaliciousprosecution $ t beforethecourt.  `   OnMarch23,1999,theOhiodistrictcourtissuedan OpinionandOrder,whichdismissed  8  AppelleesremainingclaimsagainstAppellants.AfinaljudgmentinfavorofAppellantswas $  enteredonMay5,1999. #  1      ׀Uponissuanceofthefinaljudgment,theperiodinwhichanoticeof   appealcouldbefiled,thirtydays,begantorun.SeeFed.R.App.P.4(a).Nonoticeofappeal,   however,wasfiledandthejudgmentbecamenonappealableonJune5,1999.` #  2      ׀     OnJune5,2000,AppellantsfiledsuitagainstAppelleesintheCircuitCourtofTennessee p fortheThirtiethJudicialDistrictatMemphisseekingdamagesformaliciousprosecutionin \ connectionwithAppelleesfederalsuit.ThefilingofAppellantssuitwasexactlyoneyearafterthe H previoussuitbecamenonappealableandoneyearandthirtydaysafterthefinaljudgmentwasissued 4 bythefederalcourt.Appelleessoonfiledseparatemotionstodismissforfailuretostateaclaim.  p ThecourtsustainedAppelleesmotionsonthegroundsthatAppellantsclaimwastimebarred  \ pursuanttosection283104(a)(1)oftheTennesseeCode. #  3      ׀Followingtimelynotice,Appellants H statecourtsuitisnowproperlybeforethisCourtonappeal. 4       Issue   )  AppellantsnowcontendonappealthatthetrialcourterredinsustainingAppelleesmotions  todismissforfailuretostateaclaim.Specifically,AppellantshaveaskedthisCourttodetermine t whetherthestatuteoflimitationsforamaliciousprosecutionclaimbeginstorunatentryofafinal ` orderor,rather,attheexpirationoftheperiodforappeal. L     @  @`  @  @  @h StandardofReview  $ t     ARule12.02(6)motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybe  ` grantedtestsonlythesufficiencyofthecomplaint,notthestrengthoftheplaintiffsevidence.Doe  L  v._Sundquist_,2S.W.3d919,922(Tenn.1999).Themotionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantand  8  materialavermentsinthecomplaint,butassertsthatsuchfactsareinsufficienttostateaclaimasa $  matteroflaw.Winchesterv.Little,996S.W.2d818,821(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Accordingly,a   trialcourtmayproperlygrantamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimwhere itappearsthat   theplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportof[its]claimthatwouldentitle[it]torelief.Stein   v.DavidsonHotel,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997).Onappealfromanordergrantingamotion   todismissforfailuretostateaclaim,thisCourtmustpresumethatthecomplaintsfactual p allegationsaretrueandreviewthetrialcourtsconclusionoflawregardingtheadequacyofthe \ complaintwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Dobbsv._Guenther_,846 H S.W.2d270,273(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).    4 @"LawandAnalysis  \    Themostlogicalplacetobeginourinquiryiswithareviewofsection283104(a)ofthe H TennesseeCode.Section283104(a)statesthatclaimsformaliciousprosecution shallbe 4 commencedwithinone(1)yearafterthecauseofactionaccrued.Accordingly,wemustlookto   theelementsnecessaryforamaliciousprosecutioncauseofactiontodeterminewhenthecauseof   actionaccrues.    #X3XXX` #XXXX3Inanyactionformaliciousprosecution,aplaintiffmustshowthatthefollowingthree  elementsarepresent: (1)apriorsuitorjudicialproceedingwasbroughtagainstplaintiffwithout l probablecause,(2)defendantbroughtsuchprioractionwithmalice,and(3)theprioractionwas X  finallyterminatedinfavorofplaintiff.Christianv._Lapidus_,833S.W.2d71,73(Tenn.1992) D! (citingLewisv.Allen,698S.W.2d58,59(Tenn.1985)).Obviously,thelastelementmetwill 0"  alwaysbethefinalterminationofthesuitinplaintiffsfavor.Thus,ourfocusshouldhingeonour #l! supremecourtsmeaningoftheterms finallyterminatedasusedinChristianandLewis. $X"   Afteradiligentsearch,wehavebeenunabletofindanyTennesseeprecedentthatdirectly %0!$ addressesthisissueaspresented.However,thelanguageprovidedbythisCourtsopinionin_Parrish_ &"% v.Marquis,No.W199902629COAR3CV,2000Tenn.App.LEXIS509(July31,2000),acase '#& concerningthepropervenueforamaliciousprosecutioncase,providessignificantguidance.In (#' _Parrish_,westated, )$(   |*%) 8  Thelawiswell-establishedthataplaintiff'scauseofactionformaliciousprosecution   doesnotaccrueuntiltheunderlyingmalicioussuitisterminatedintheplaintiff's  favor.SeeChristianv._Lapidus_,833S.W.2d71,73(Tenn.1992);Rosenv.Levy,  120Tenn.642,113_S.W._Ԁ1042,1044(Tenn.1908);_Swepson_Ԁv.Davis,109Tenn.99, t 70_S.W._Ԁ65,68(Tenn.1902);Grayv.26thJudicialDrugTaskForce,1997Tenn. ` App.LEXIS476,No.02A01-9609-CV-00218,1997WL379141,at*2(Tenn.Ct. L  App.July8,1997(noperm.app.filed);_Millsaps_Ԁv._Millsaps_,1989Tenn.App. 8  LEXIS317,1989WL44840,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.May3,1989),perm.app.denied $ t (Tenn.Sept.5,1989).Inthepresentcase,thelegalmalpracticeactionwasterminated  ` in_Parrish_'sfavorinJuly1996whentheKnoxCountyCircuitCourtentereditsorder  L  granting_Parrish_'smotionforsummaryjudgmentanddismissingMiller'sclaimwith  8  prejudice.Accordingly,if_Parrish_Ԁhasacauseofactionformaliciousprosecution $  basedupontheDefendants'prosecutionofthelegalmalpracticeclaim,_Parrish_'s   causeofactionarosewhentheKnoxCountyCircuitCourtentereditsorderinJuly   1996.#X3XXX&#XXXX3    Id.at*1112(emphasisadded).Althoughin_Parrish_weweredealingwithvenue,itwasimportant p toourreviewinthatcasetodeterminewhenthecauseofactionaccruedtodeterminewhereit \ accrued.Indealingwiththisissue,weplainlyheldthatthecauseofactionaccruedwhentheprior H actionwasdismissedwithprejudice,notwhentheperiodfornoticeofappealexpired.Weconclude 4 thatthisholdingcanbeappliedtothecasesubjudice.  p   AppellantsarguethatthisCourtshouldlooktothelawofthestateofKansas,whichholds H thatthestatuteoflimitationsforamaliciousprosecutiondoesnotbegintorununtiltheexpiration 4 ofthetimewithinwhichtofileapetitionforcertioraritotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.See   _Voth_Ԁv.Coleman,945P.2d426(_Kan_.1997).However,wedisagree.ThisCourt,in_Parrish_,   providedsufficientguidanceastothelawofthisstateandhasobviatedtheneedtolookoutsideour  jurisdictionforguidance.    Finally,wenotethatunderAppellantsargument,aplaintiffwouldnotbeallowedtofilea l claimformaliciousprosecutionuntilafterthenoticeofappealhadexpiredduetothefactthatthe X  causeofactionwouldnotyethaveaccrued.ItisapparenttothisCourtthatsuchaholdingwould D! beillogicalandinconsistentwiththelawofthisstate.Thus,inaccordancewith_Parrish_,we 0"  concludethatAppellantsstatuteoflimitationswasnottolledbytheperiodforappeal.Accordingly, #l! thetrialcourtdidnoterrinsustainingAppelleesmotiontodismiss. $X"     h+&* O e   Conclusion  e     Fortheaforementionedreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costsonappeal = aretaxedequallytoAppellants,EugeneI._Selker_ԀandMark_Selker_,andtheirsurety,forwhich ) executionmayissueifnecessary.    #X3XXXc3##\XX32 #X3X\      `     h     ___________________________________  X     `     h     ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGE  H