WPC* oz͡x泧o=uǧՁ8vX~'Vڻ>5O( \W{0[Q9EMFU-V`R=$Qd 9p :Km:WU$@MM.DD&)#R0MYhMqD>|ίtfu!h4UU@+H:7е4ȲEFuZ]s+MqƘtw5Yw.mgAl/fc.NiF0m<89jqJܞW(y-=}n7U>@ 0> 08 0/ 0& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0` 0B 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0H 0) 0 0 0 0 0 l9! 0V! 0! 0<" 0v# 0T# 0# 0:^$$ 0&U>e'' 0'#i(UN** %x*M~*(*N*^ *w*4** m*\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLEILLELA satisfied Microsoft Office UserL0A satisfied Microsoft Office User .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  64 '4Heading 1       XXX 6 4Heading 2       6 4Heading 3   6Q D4Heading 4 X 5+4 44 <DL!5    5+ 4 <DL!5 <:Default Para.$$ ,Title       XXX<  :Body Text In X X 0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number  ()..      -X(XX-XX(XX-X(  _! !X!&  XX(X(X)X(XXX(%$ !!$  %R  &(  X(XX)X((2$ ++!..      -X(XX-XX(XX-X(  \  `&Times New Roman#|x(+$..      -X(XX-XX(XX-X(HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular-X؅Y) sM)~100jU ++!..      -X(XX-XX(XX-X(  _       XX8(XXdd8'# XX(    #T  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHEMIDDLEDISTRICT  OFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLE#T݌ 2 Ќ  X(X      XX(\       &    TracySimmonsv.JamesL.Harris  Ԍ F Ќ   \  \  'F     &    X(X\DirectAppealfromtheFirstCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty:  Ԍ ^  Ќ           No.99C2154WalterC.Kurtz,JudgeK  3Ԍ D  Ќ   _______________'^ . * z No.M200000227_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober25,_2000_  F  _______________ ,     4 ThebasisofthislitigationbeganasadiscriminationsuitfiledagainstMiddle   TennesseeStateUniversity( _MTSU_)onMarch2,1995.TheAppellantTracySimmons   (Simmons)hiredtheAppelleeJamesHarris( Harris)torepresenthiminhisaction t  against_MTSU_.ThediscriminationsuitwasultimatelydismissedonMay10,1995. Z SimmonsthenappealedtotheSixthCircuitCourtofAppeals,andonJuly11,1997,the @ CourtofAppealsaffirmedthedismissal.Simmonssubsequentlyfiledacomplaint &v againstHarriswiththeBoardofProfessionalResponsibility,whichwaslaterdismissed.  \ HarristhenbroughtanactionagainstSimmonsforattorneysfees.Thecontroversynow B beforeusconcernsthesuitbroughtbySimmonsalleginglegalmalpractice,malicious ( prosecution,andabuseofprocessagainstHarris.OnOctober14,1999,Harrisfileda  MotionforSummaryJudgmentandonDecember14,1999,thetrialcourtgrantedHarris  motion,dismissingclaimsformaliciousprosecution,abuseofprocess,andlegal  malpractice.Thereafter,SimmonssubmittedaMotiontoReconsider,whichwasdenied. p Thisappealensued. V      &      Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed    Ԍ "r Ќ  '"  ASH,SpecialJudgeDonR.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJudge > CRAWFORDandJudgeFARMER,joined.  $ TracySimmons,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,prose. "  LawrenceWilson,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JamesL.Harris. l$"       &    OPINION]  9Ԍ 8&!$ Ќ   '8&Q 4 I. (T#&  4 OnMay10,1993,SimmonsfiledacomplaintwiththeMiddleTennesseeState ) %( UniversitysEqualOpportunityOffice.HarrisrepresentedSimmonsinasuitfiled *&) against_MTSU_ԀonMarch2,1995.ThelawsuitwasdismissedonMay30,1995asa +&*  resultofthestatuteoflimitations.SimmonsappealedthedecisiontotheSixthCircuit ,'+ _CourtofAppealsprose.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtanddismissedthe  caseonJuly11,1997.    4 Subsequently,SimmonsfiledacomplaintwiththeBoardofProfessional b ResponsibilityallegingthatHarrisfailedtoexercisereasonableprofessionaljudgmentin H representinghim.ThecomplaintwasdismissedbytheBoard. . ~  4 Next,HarrisfiledanactioninGeneralSessionsCourtseekingtocollect  J attorneysfeesinthediscriminationlawsuit.Harrisclaimedthefeewasbasedonan  0 hourlyrate,whereasSimmonsallegedtheratewasonacontingencybasis.Therewasno    contractindicatingapreferenceforeitherone.Thecollectionactionwasultimately    dismissedonSeptember14,1998,becauseHarriswasunabletopresentsufficientproof   thatheandSimmonshadacontract.SimmonsagainfiledacomplaintwiththeBoardof x  ProfessionalResponsibility,whichwasultimatelydismissed. ^   4 OnAugust3,1999,SimmonsfiledasuitagainstHarrisalleginglegal *z  malpractice,maliciousprosecution,andabuseofprocess.SimmonsarguedthatHarris ` collectionactionwasbroughtinretaliationtohiscomplaintfiledwiththeBoard. F $ X  $  HarrissubsequentlyfiledamotionforSummaryJudgment.OnDecember14,  1999,JudgeWalterC.KurtzgrantedHarrisMotionforSummaryJudgment.  Consequently,SimmonsbroughtaMotiontoReconsider,whichwasdenied.Onthis  appeal,theissuesbeforetheCourtarewhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingSummary t JudgmenttoHarrisonSimmonsclaimsforlegalmalpractice,maliciousprosecutionand Z abuseofprocess.$ ݌ @ Ќ X  $ X  $  $݌ &v Ќ X  $ X  $  II.$;݌  \ Ќ X  $ X  $  $݌ B Ќ X  $ X  $3  Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,atrialcourtsgrantordenialof ( summaryjudgmentisreviewed denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. SeeBainv.  Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).Ifthecourtfindstherearenogenuineissues  ofmaterialfactandthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,the   courtmustaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantingofthesummaryjudgmentmotion. SeeByrd p!  v.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.1993).Whenthereisalegitimatedisputeastoany V"! materialfactoranydoubtastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheundisputedfacts, <#" theordergrantingsummaryjudgmentmustbedenied. SeeId. $3\݌ "$r# Ќ X  $ X  $   $ A ݌ %X $ Ќ X  $ X  $   Todeterminewhetheragrantofsummaryjudgmentisappropriate,thecourtmust %>!% decide ifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile, &$"& togetherwithaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfact ' #' andthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P. (#( 56.04.$ ݌ )$) Ќ X  $ X  $"  $"#݌ l*%* Ќ X  $ X  $#  TheCourtin Byrd ,847S.W.2dat214,establishedthreeelementsthat lieatthe R+&+  heartofevaluatingasummaryjudgmentmotion.Tomakeadeterminationon 8,', summaryjudgment,wemustdecide (1)whetherafactualdisputeexists;(2)whether  thatfactismaterial;and(3)whetherthatfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial. Id. 󀀀$##݌   X  $ X  $%  $%%݌ | Ќ X  $ X  $e&  Thepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentcarriestheburdenofpersuadingthecourt b thatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexist. Id. at215.Further,ifthemovingparty H satisfiestheirburden,theburdensubsequentlyshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforth . ~ specificfactstoshowthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactrequiringsubmissiontothe  d trieroffact. Id. Moreover, thenonmovingpartymaynotrelyonallegationsordenials  J ofhispleadingsincarryingouthisburden. Id. $e&&݌  0 Ќ X  $ X  X$q)  $q))݌̌   $ X  $)  Furthermore,Rule56provides,inpertinentpart:$)#*݌    Ќ X  $ X  $*  $**݌   Ќ X  $ X  X X?+4 44 <DL!X?$I+  InordertoassisttheCourtinascertainingwhetherthereareanymaterialfactsin x  dispute,anymotionforsummaryjudgmentmadepursuanttoRule56ofthe ^  TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureshallbeaccompaniedbyaseparateconcise D  statementofthematerialfactsastowhichthemovingpartycontendsthereisno *z  genuineissuefortrial.Eachfactshallbesupportedbyaspecificcitationtothe ` record.Anypartyopposingthemotionforsummaryjudgmentmustrespondto F eachfactsetforthbythemovanteither(i)agreeingthatthefactisundisputed;(ii) , agreeingthatthefactisundisputedforthepurposesofrulingonthemotionfor  summaryjudgmentonly;or(iii)demonstratingthatthefactisdisputed.$I++݌  Ќ   $ X  X$/  $//݌̌   $ X  X$-0  ****$-0d0݌ t Ќ   $ X  X$0  $01݌ Z Ќ X  XIntheinstantcase,SimmonsdidnotcomplywithRule56.Conversely,Harris @ filedastatementofundisputedfactsconsistentwithRule56.03settingforthfacts &v supportedbyanaffidavitthatalsoincorporatedbyreferencedocumentsfromthefederal  \ discriminationlawsuitandaletterrelatedtotheBoardofProfessionalResponsibility B complaint.PursuanttotherequirementsofRule56,Harrissetfortheachfactina ( separate,numberedparagraph.   X$ X  $3  Rule56specificallyrequiresthenonmovingpartytofilearesponseeither (i)   agreeingthatthefactisundisputed;(ii)agreeingthatthefactisundisputedforpurposes p!  ofrulingonthemotionforsummaryjudgmentonly;or(iii)demonstratingthatthefactis V"! disputed.Simmonsfailedtofilearesponsetotheundisputedfacts.Simmonsfiledno <#" supportingaffidavitsandsimplyreliedonthedepositionofHarris.TheRuleprovides "$r# thatsummaryjudgmentshallberendered subjecttothemovingpartyscompliancewith %X $ Rule56.03.$33݌ %>!% Ќ X  X &$"& $ XX  $"7  CourtshaveheldthatnoncompliancewiththeRulemayresultinarefusalbythe ' #' courttoconsiderthenonmovingpartysfactualcontentions.TheCourtin Midwest (#( Imports,Ltd.V.Coval ,71F.3dat131516(7thCir.1995),foundthatanonmoving )$) partysfailuretofileastatementofundisputedfactssuggestthatthosefactswillnotbe l*%* consideredbythecourt,regardlessifthefactscanbeobtainedintheevidentiary R+&+ materials.( therequiredstatementsareroadmaps,andwithoutthemthecourtshould 8,', nothavetoproceedfurther,regardlessofhowreadilyitmightbeabletodistillthe -n(- relevantinformationfromtherecordonitsown.).Consequently,asaneffectto  Simmonsfailuretorespondtotheundisputedfacts,Harrisallegedfactsaredeemed  admitted.$"7K7݌ | Ќ XX  $ XX  X$;  $;;݌̌ X  $ XX  $<  III.$<C<݌ H Ќ XX  $ XX  $<  $<<݌ . ~ Ќ XX  $ XX  $<=  TodeterminewhethersummaryjudgmentforHarrisisappropriateinthiscase,  d wemustfirstdeterminethestateoflawconcerningthestatuteoflimitationsforlegal  J malpractice.Inordertobringasuccessfulclaimforlegalmalpractice,anactionmustbe  0 commencedwithinoneyearafterthecauseofactionensued.T.C.A.283104(a)(2).    Here,SimmonsfiledhislegalmalpracticeonAugust3,1999,whichwastwoyears    beyondtheallegedmalpractice.Obviously,thelegalmalpracticeclaimwasclearlyfiled   beyondthestatuteoflimitationsasrequiredbyT.C.A283104(a)(2).Thus,thetrial x  courtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmentinregardtoSimmonsclaimforlegal ^  malpracticeasamatteroflaw.$<=e=݌ D  Ќ XX  X XE+4 44 <DL!444X!EIV. `  $ X  X$A  InTennesseetwotortclaimsmaybebroughttoobtainredressforthealleged , misuseofprocessbyanother:maliciousprosecutionandabuseofprocess. Donaldsonv.  Donaldson, 557S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1977); Priestv.UnionAgency, 174Tenn.304,  125S.W.2d142,143(1939).Maliciousprosecutionistheemploymentoflegalprocess  foritsapparentpurpose,butwithoutprobablecause. Swepsonv.Davis ,109Tenn.99, t 70S.W.65(1902).Toestablishtheessentialelementsofanactionformalicious Z prosecution,theplaintiffhastheburdenofshowingthat (1)apriorsuitorjudicial @ proceedingwasbroughtagainstplaintiffwithoutprobablecause,(2)defendantbrought &v suchprioractionwithmalice,and(3)theprioractionwasfinallyterminatedinfavorof  \ plaintiff. SeeBellexrelSnyderv.Icard ,986S.W.2d550,555(Tenn.1999); B  Christianv.Lapidus ,833S.W.2d71,73(Tenn.1992).Furthermore,theplaintiffhasa (  heavyburdenofproofinestablishinglackofprobablecauseandmalice. Kauffmanv.  A.H.Robins,Company ,223Tenn.515,523,448S.W.2d400(Tenn.1969); Budav.  CasselBrothers,Inc. ,568S.W.2d628,631(Tenn.App.1978).$AA݌   Ќ X  $ X  $ZH  $ZHH݌ p!  Ќ X  $ X  $H  Intheinstantcase,Simmonshasthe heavyburdenofproofestablishingmalice V"! andlackofprobablecauseonthepartofHarris.Reasonablemindswouldnotdifferthat <#" Harrishadprobablecausetobringacollectionactionforattorneyfees,regardlesswhen "$r# actionwasbroughtaslongasitwasbroughtingoodfaith.Further,therecordsupports %X $ thatHarriscollectionactionwasbasedonthegoodfaithbeliefthatanoralcontract %>!% existedandthathewasduepaymentforhisservices.Therewerenofactstosupportthe &$"& contraryoflackofprobablecause.TheSupremeCourtexpresslystatedin Byrdv.Hall , ' #' 847S.W.2d208,215, thatthenonmovingpartymaynotrelyupontheallegationsor (#( denialsofhispleadingsincarryingouthisburdenasmandatedbyRule56.05.This )$) burdenprovedtobetoomuchtoovercomeforSimmons.Thus,thetrialcourtsgrantof l*%* summaryjudgmentwasappropriateregardingSimmonsclaimformalicious R+&+ prosecution.$HI݌ 8,', Ќ X  $ X  $CN  $CNlN݌ -n(- Ќ X  $ X  $N  $NO݌  Ќ X  $ X  $mO  V.$mOO݌  Ќ X  $ X  $P  $P-P݌ | Ќ X  $ X  X$P   4 SimmonsthirdactioninaccordancewithherappealchargesHarriswithabuseof b process.Abuseofprocessdiffersfrommaliciousprosecutioninthatabuseofprocess H lies fortheimproperuseofprocessafterithasbeenissued,notformaliciouslycausing . ~ processtoissue. Priest, 174Tenn.at306,125S.W.2dat143; BellexrelSnyderv.  d Icard, 986S.W.2d550,555(Tenn.1999);seealsoRestatement(Second)ofTorts682  J (1977)( Thesubsequentmisuseoftheprocess,thoughproperlyobtained,constitutes  0 misconductforwhichtheliabilityisimposed8.); TheLawofTorts 4.9at4:84(3rd    ed.1995)(Maliciousprosecutionisthewrongfulassertionofanaction,whereasabuseof    processisthe improperuse,orratherabuse,ofprocessinconnectiontherewith8.).   InTennessee,toestablishasuccessfulclaimforabuseofprocess,twobasicelements x  mustbealleged: (1)theexistenceofanulteriormotive;and(2)anactintheuseof ^  processafterithasbeenissued,notformaliciouslycausingprocesstoissue. Priest ,174 D  Tenn.at306,125S.W.2dat143.$PP݌ *z  Ќ   $ X  X$V   4 $VW݌̌   $ X  X$jW   4 AstheCourtsemphasizedin Priest and Bell ,$jWW݌ F Ќ   $ X  X$]X  $]XX݌̌   $ X  X XE+4 44 <DL!444X!E$X  Thetestastowhetherthereisanabuseofprocessiswhethertheprocesshas  beenusedtoaccomplishsomeendwhichiswithouttheregularpurviewofthe  process,orwhichcompelsthepartyagainstwhomitisusedtodosomecollateral  thingwhichhecouldnotlegallyandregularlybecompelledtodo.$XvY݌ t Ќ   $ X  X$N[  $N[[݌ Z Ќ X  $ X  $[  174Tenn.at307,125S.W.2dat144;986S.W.2dat555.Abuseofprocessdoes @ notoccurunlessitis directedoutsideofitslawfulcoursetotheaccomplishmentof &v someobjectotherthanthatforwhichitisprovided. Id. 󀀀$[\݌  \ Ќ X  $ X  $]  $]]݌ B Ќ X  $ X  $8^  Further,Tennesseeaswellasanumberofotherjurisdictions,foundthatthe (  mereinitiationoflawsuit,thoughaccompaniedbyamaliciousulteriormotive,willnot  beenoughtoestablishacauseofactionforabuseofprocess. Id. ; Josephv.  Markovitz ,27Ariz.App.122,551P.2d571,575(Ariz.App.1976)( Proofofabuseof   processrequiressomeactbeyondtheinitiationofalawsuit.); OrenRoyalOaks p!  Venturev.Greenberg,Bernhard,Weiss&Karma,Inc. ,42Cal.3d1157,728P.2d V"! 1202,1208,232Cal.Rptr.567(Cal.1986)( Themerefilingormaintenanceofalawsuit <#" !evenforanimproperpurpose!isnotaproperbasisforanabuseofprocessaction.); "$r#  Yoderv.Adriatico ,459So.2d449,450(Fla.App.1984)( Thetortofabuseofprocessis %X $ concernedwiththeimproperuseofprocessafteritissues.).Theulteriormotivemust %>!% reachitshighestdegreeinanactualabuseofprocess bypervertingittoausetoobtaina &$"& resultwhichtheprocesswasnotintendedbylawtoeffect. Bell ,986S.W.2dat555.$8^a^݌ ' #' Ќ X  $ X  $ d  $ d3d݌ (#( Ќ X  $ X  $d  TheonlyfactsSimmonspresentedtotheCourtwerehisconclusionthattherewas )$) anulteriormotiveforHarriscollectionclaim.Furthermore,regardlessofwhether l*%* HarrishadanulteriormotivewillnotbesufficientforSimmonstoestablishacauseof R+&+ action.Withoutadditionalfacts,Harris  merelyinstituting acollectionactiondoes 8,', notamounttoabuseofprocess. SeeBell ,986S.W.2dat554(emphasisadded)( merely -n(- institutingcivilproceedingsisgenerallynotsufficienttosupportanabuseofprocess  claim.).Moreover,SimmonspresentednoproofthatwouldshowHarrishadanyother  reasontofilesuitotherthantocollectthedelinquentfees.Inlightofthegoverning | principlesestablishedin Priest and Bell ,weareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourt b properlygrantedHarrissummaryjudgmentpertainingtotheissueofabuseofprocess.$dd݌ H Ќ X  XE+4 44 <DL!444X!E XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E 4 VI.  d  XWefindthatthetrialcourtappropriatelygrantedHarrissummaryjudgment  0 regardingSimmonsclaimsforlegalmalpractice,maliciousprosecution,andabuseof    process.Thus,judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealareassessed    againstSimmons.     X XB+4 44 <DL!X!B XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E  4    <      D      L    4    <     JudgeDonR.Ash   ,