WPCkH h8a >#TB^8a͘[мx4;F 5 kWnhxfEy{1p3%3q{""pv{Gb7?][s)Ƃ5W)@RL ]هْ}PM @MQ[R)",Ŀ3Q`;DVa$)bf1r{R^8 vg<π7& 0>& 06' 0( 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0Z, 02,- 0^- 0:Z. 0Y. 0_. 0 L/ 0V0 01 B*3 D/4 074 D/=6 0l6 06:7 0p7 0:x8 0^8 0<9 1eL9U69 09U>:U*;:; BB;1_; 0= D54> D-i> 0K>9> AS@m@ 03A 0DA ABB)BBB 1uF 72dGdGdGG\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0a<1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+00 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 3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    Q Rr$      1    _Thecorporateplaintiffsdissolvedin1989and1991,respectively.Sibley,astockholderinbothcompanies,  claimstobeactingastheagentconcludingthecorporationsbusinessaffairs.*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  - -(,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7G(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dF)1dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  F)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%& 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New(|G2r$ !.8%dd8         0  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  d ' Rr$      3    _StevenC.Mays,individuallyandasashareholderand/orpartnerofTS&S,Inc.,S&MLeasingandS&MBody  Shop,Plaintiffvs.JamesH.Sibley,individuallyandasashareholderand/orpartnerandasofficeranddirectorof t TS&S,Inc.,S&MLeasing,Inc.,andS&MBodyShop.TheactionwasfiledintheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty, 8 Tennessee(No.1346301).(|3f$ !.8%dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   / Rr$      2    _Currently,thecorporatedefendantisidentifiedas TheMcCordLawFirm,P.C.KeithMcCordisthe  corporationsregisteredagentandstockholder.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3f$ !.8%dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  Rr$      4    _ Thedoctrine...restssolelyonpublicpolicywhichexaltsthesanctityoftheoath.Theobjectistosafeguard  theadministrationofjusticebyplacingarestraintuponthetendencytorecklessandfalseswearingandtherebypreserve t thepublicconfidenceinthepurityandefficiencyofjudicialproceedings.Melton,222S.W.2dat669;seealso_Gilley_ 8 v._Jernigan_,597S.W.2d313,318(Tenn.Ct.App.1979);andBubisv.Blackman,58Tenn.App.619,435S.W.2d492 L (Tenn.Ct.App.1968)("[A]partycannotbeallowedtosolemnlytakeapositioninthecourseoflitigationwhichhe  thinksistohisadvantage,and,then,changethispositiontoanotherandcontraryonewhenhedeemsittohisadvantage  todoso.")3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)fi) Rr$      5    _ThefundsatissueinMaysv.Sibleyarethesamefundsatissuehere. !.8%dd8     _  %8AXXdd8  @ %INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#% #Ԉ 8   May5,2004Session ^ XAX% #%XXA#JAMESH.SIBLEY,etal.v.W.KEITH_McCORD_,etal.XAX%   \ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  \ @@No.1496353WilliamE._Lantrip_,Chancellor  H @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200301324_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDSEPTEMBER28,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A        Plaintiffs,formerclientsofKeith_McCord_,Weaver&_Troutman_,P.C.,#%XXA#XAX%seekanaccounting,recovery  ofmisappropriatedfunds,ifany,andcompensatorydamages.#%XXA#XAX%Plaintiffshired_McCord_Ԁandhisfirm v torepresentthemindefenseoffederalandstatetaxclaimsanddepositedupwardsof$500,000with b thefirm#%XXA~#XAX%Ԁtofacilitatepaymentofthedisputedclaims.#%XXA#XAX%Thechancellordismissedtheactionon N summaryjudgmentholdingthattheplaintiffsconversionclaimwasbarredbythethreeyearstatute : oflimitationsandthattheclaimforanaccountingwasbarredbythedoctrineofjudicialestoppel. &v Weaffirm. b  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt : AffirmedandRemanded &    #%XA #XAX.%FrankG.Clement,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,_P.J._,  M.S.,andPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined.  GeneA.Stanley,Jr.,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellantsJamesH.Sibley,S&MBodyShop, r  Inc.,andTruckSales&Service,Inc. ^!  DarrylG.Lowe,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,W.Keith_McCord_,Weaver&_Troutman_, 6#" P.C.,and_McCord_Ԁ&_Troutman_,P.C. "$r#   OPINION #%XXAK #XAX% %J!% #%XXAj #  XAX%  Thisisanactionagainstanattorneyandhislawfirmbroughtbyformerclientswhomthe '"#' attorneyrepresentedindefenseoffederalandstatetaxclaims.JamesH.Sibley,S&MBodyShop, ($(  Inc.,andTruckSalesandService,Inc.,(Plaintiffs) #  1      ׀filedsuitagainstKeith_McCord_,Weaver& )$) _Troutman,P.C.,andMcCord&Troutman.,P.C.ThecorporatedefendantsareoneTennessee  corporation,alawfirm,whichhasundergonenamechanges.\ #  2      ׀     Plaintiffsassertthatbeginningin1991andcontinuingthroughMayof1993,theydeposited t atotalof$501,706intoMcCordstrustaccounttofacilitatethesettlementandpaymentofthetax ` claims.SibleycontendsthathemadenumerousattemptstoobtaininformationfromMcCord L  regardingthetrustfunds,includingpersonalvisits,telephonecalls,andanApril21,1999written 8  demand.HefurthercontendsthatMcCordfailedtoprovidedocumentation,evadedSibleys $ t inquiriesandfailedtoaccountforthefunds.  `   Thisactionwascommencedin2001.Inthecomplaint,PlaintiffsallegethatMcCordmay  8  haveconvertedormisappropriatedtheremainingfunds,ifany,andtheyseekajudicialaccounting $  fortheperiodfromApril1991throughDecember1995.Plaintiffsfurtherallegethattheremaining   trustfundsmaybeinexcessof$120,000.     McCorddeniesanywrongdoingorliability.Healsoinsiststhathepreviouslyaccountedfor   themoniesinJuly1997andthatthereisnoneedforafurtheraccounting.Hefurtherassertsthat p Sibleysclaimofconversionisbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsandthattheremainingclaimsare \ barredbythedoctrinesofwaiverandestoppelduetoajudicialadmissionsbySibleyinacivilaction H betweenSibleyandaformerbusinessassociate,StephenMays(Maysv.SibleyW #  3      )concerningthe 4 fundsatissuehere.  p   McCordfiledtwomotionsforsummaryjudgmentbasedinpartonSibleysassertionsin H Maysv.Sibley.ThechancellorgrantedMcCordsmotionsforsummaryjudgment.Inone,the 4 chancellorheldthatSibleywasjudiciallyestoppedfromassertingthatanaccountinghadnotbeen   providedbyMcCord.Intheother,thechancellorheldthattheclaimofconversionwasbarredby   thethreeyearstatuteoflimitations,Tenn.CodeAnn.283105,findingthestatutebegantorun  in1997,whenSibleyreceivedthethreepageledger(accountingoftrustactivity)fromMcCord.    PlaintiffsappealassertingthatthechancellorerredbyholdingthatSibleywasjudicially l estoppedfromdenyinghewasprovidedwithanaccountingandbyholdingthattheactionfor X  conversionwasbarredbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.Thoughnotstatedasaseparateissue, D! Plaintiffsalsocontendthatthechancellorserrorsresultedfrom puttingthecartbeforethehorse. 0"  Statedanotherway,theycontendthatthechancellorshouldhaveruledontheaccountingissue #l! beforerulingontheconversionissueanddoingsowouldhaveproducedadifferentresult. $X"  $D # Ї  Wereviewatrialcourtssummaryjudgmentawarddenovo,withnopresumptionof  correctness.Guyv.Mut.ofOmahaIns.Co.,79S.W.3d528,534(Tenn.2002).Summaryjudgments  arenotappropriatewhengenuineissuesofmaterialfactexist.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03;Byrdv.Hall,  847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofproofandmust t eitherconclusivelyestablishanaffirmativedefenseornegateanessentialelementofthenonmoving ` partysclaim.McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998)(citing L  Byrd,847S.W.2dat215).Ifandwhenthisisaccomplished,theburdenshiftstothenonmoving 8  party.McCarley,960S.W.2dat588.Thecourt musttakethestrongestlegitimateviewofthe $ t evidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,and  ` discardallcountervailingevidence.Byrd,847S.W.2dat210211.Ifthereisanydoubtasto  L  whetherornotagenuineissueexists,summaryjudgmentshallbedenied.Byrd,847S.W.2dat211;  8  McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998). $     Thedoctrineofjudicialestoppelpreventsalitigantwhohastakenapositioninonejudicial   proceedingfromtakingacontradictorypositioninanother.Chancev.Gibson,99S.W.3d108,110   (Tenn.Ct.App.2002)(citingShellv.Law,935S.W.2d402(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)).Whereone   statesunderoathinformerlitigation,eitherinapleading,adepositionoronoraltestimony,agiven p factastrue,onewillnotbepermittedtodenythatfactinsubsequentlitigation,althoughtheparties \ maynotbethesame.Meltonv.Anderson,222S.W.2d666,669(Tenn.Ct.App.1948).c #  4      ׀Apleading H fromadifferentcase,ifrelevant,isajudicialadmissionandunderthedoctrineofjudicialestoppel 4 isconclusiveevidence.Marcusv.Marcus,993S.W.2d596,602(Tenn.1999).  p Ѐ  \   Maysv.SibleywasadisputebetweenSibleyandhisformerbusinessassociateStephenMays. H MayssuedSibleyassertingthatSibleyhadreceivedfundsonbehalfofTruckSales&Service,Inc., 4 S&MLeasingandS&MBodyShopbutfailedtoaccounttoMaysandtodisburseMaysshare.   MaysdemandedanaccountingfromSibley.j #  5      ׀IndefenseoftheallegationsinMaysv.Sibleythat   Sibleyhadmishandledthetrustfunds,Sibleyrepeatedlyassertedthathehadreceivedafull  accountingoftrustactivitiesfromMcCord.Moreover,Sibleyreliedonthesamethreepageledger  preparedbyMcCordthatisatissuehereandrepresentedittobeafullaccountingofthedisputed  trustfunds.IntheAnswerandCounterclaimtoMayscomplaint,Sibleystatedthathehadreceived l a fullandcompleteaccountingfromMcCord,stating: X  8  [P]roceeds...werepaidovertoW.KeithMcCord,AttorneyatLaw,whowas 0"  actingasescrowagentortrusteeforthepartiestothisactionandthebusinessentities #l! describedintheComplaint;andthatfurther,DefendantaversthatPlaintiffhasbeen  furnishedwithafullaccountingbytheaforesaidescrowagentortrusteeofall  moniesreceivedanddisbursedbyhim;   8      8  DefendantaversthatsaidfundswerepaidoverbyhimtoW.KeithMcCord,the ` escrowagentortrusteefortheparties,ashereinbeforedescribed;andthatDefendant L  furtheraversthatPlaintiffhasbeenfurnishedafullandcompleteaccountingbythe 8  aforesaidescrowagentortrusteeforallfundsreceivedanddisbursedbyhim;$ t   8      8  DefendantaversthattheabovenamedW.KeithMcCordwasnotactingas Sibleys  L  attorney,asalleged,butrather,asishereinbeforestated,wasactingastheescrow  8  agentortrusteeforPlaintiffandDefendantandforthesubjectbusinessentities,as $  hereinbeforedescribed,byagreementofPlaintiffandDefendant,andthatPlaintiff   hasreceivedafullaccountingoftheactivitiesofsaidescrowagentortrustee.   (emphasisadded).      TheassertionsandpleadingsbySibleyinMaysv.Sibleythathehadreceivedafulland p completeaccountingfromMcCordarejudicialadmissions.SeeMarcus,993S.W.2dat602.As \ such,Sibleyisprecludedfromnowcontendingthathedidnotreceivean adequateaccounting. H SeeId.at602.Thus,weaffirmthedismissaloftheclaimforanaccounting. 4    Wenowaddresstheconversionissue.Actionsforconversionofpersonalpropertyshallbe  \ commencedwithinthreeyearsoftheaccruingofthecauseofaction.Tenn.CodeAnn.28-3-105. H Thethreepageledger(accountingoftrustactivity)providedbyMcCordinJuly1997toSibleystates 4 thatthelasttrustactivitywasDecember1995.Sibleysactionforconversionwasnotcommenced   untilJanuary10,2001,morethanthreeyearslater.Accordingly,Sibleysactionforconversionis   barredbythestatuteoflimitations,Tenn.CodeAnn.28-3-105,unlessthestatuteoflimitations  istolledduetofraudulentconcealment.      SibleycontendsthatMcCordfraudulentlyconcealedtheconversionoftrustfunds.To p establishfraudulentconcealment,aplaintiffmustprovethefollowingelements: \  8  (1)thatthedefendanttookaffirmativeactiontoconcealthecauseofactionor 4"  remainedsilentandfailedtodisclosematerialfactsdespiteadutytodoso;(2)that  #p! theplaintiffcouldnothavediscoveredthecauseofactiondespiteexercising  $\" reasonablecareanddiligence;(3)thatthedefendanthadknowledgeofthefacts $H # givingrisetothecauseofaction;and(4)thatthedefendantsconcealedmaterialfacts %4!$ fromtheplaintiffbywithholdinginformationormakinguseofsomedeviceto & "% misleadtheplaintiff,orbyfailingtodiscloseinformationwhenheorshehadaduty ' #& todoso.(#'   PerosSteakandSpaghettiHousev.Lee,90S.W.3d614,625(Tenn.2000)(citingShadrickv. *%) Coker,963S.W.2d726,735(Tenn.1998)).TherecordonlycontainsmereallegationsbySibley l+&* offraudulentconcealment.Thereisnocredibleevidenceintherecordtosupporttheseclaims.  Specifically,thereisnocredibleevidenceintherecordthatMcCordtookaffirmativeactionto  concealthecauseofactionorthathefailedtodisclosematerialfacts.Therebeingnoevidenceto  supportthecontentionoffraudulentconcealment,thechancellorcorrectlyheldthattheactionfor t conversionwasbarredbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitations. `   Wealsofindthatthechancellordidnotcommittheerrorofputtingthecartbeforethehorse. 8  Plaintiffscontendthatthechancellorshouldhavefirstruledonthestatuteoflimitationsissueand $ t foundthelimitationapplicabletoaccountingsappliedratherthanconversion.Bynotdoingso,they  ` contend,thechancellorgottheproverbial cartbeforethehorse.Wefindthattheresultwouldbe  L  nodifferenthadthechancellorfirstruledonthecartorfirstruledonthehorse,becauseSibleys  8  judicialadmissionsbarPlaintiffsclaimforanaccounting.Therefore,therewasnothingleftforthe $  chancellortoerroneouslyput,orruleon,inthewrongorder.     CostsofappealareassessedjointlyandseverallyagainstAppellants,JamesM.Sibley,S&M   BodyShop,Inc.,andTruckSales&Service,Inc.      `     h     ___________________________________ 4    `     h     FRANKG.CLEMENT,JR.,JUDGE  p