WPC* HMe$!?v֋7[_Ȩjϙ@3i#&Fl11syo 25ք:]Lo5L߷OHTxY<$b 0Ԩit&QѺ]L-OKjhsytŽ4w”h[:f$֬ Ê#%m ~һ!(KR:0 ~~.~PG鎶$/E}BPDܓ?)GrP ]d0K1)W01tO]:eJ@TX28^ىRo?Vl 5HXD"f%Y@R;3t[ Zo9m\A :Π?JZb._DYa$./L!#} 7I⽏ NdaEt?e+RWw!}77*xbUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # c   F 0D NP 1R 72E   1u 72 0cb 0'''' B 0/ D3 D- 0K33 AS~ 0 0D; A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Q+s 8n_+t)tWpdocs3|x 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.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0 Y Rz$      1    _ ` ThesaleoftheoptiontothePartnership,consistingofMr.Smythe,Jim_Hindman_,DavidMcGowan  andLloydCraig,didnotmaterialize. t ́Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -(|G2z$ !.8,dd8         0   d(|3p$ !.8,dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3p$ !.8,dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8,dd8     _  ,8i@XXdd8  @ + ,INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#,+ #Ԉ &   August7,2001Session L Xi@X, #,XXi@#THOMASA._SMYTHE_Ԁv.PHILJONES,etal.Xi@X,  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.25568Russ_Heldman_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002062_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember5,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     InthissuitwhereinthePlaintiff,Thomasa._Smythe_,seeksdamagesagainsttheDefendant,Donald x  _Cowan_,forwillfullyinterferingwithcontractualrelationsbetweenMr._Smythe_ԀandPhilJones,the d TrialCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentbecauseinhisopiniontheStatuteofLimitationsbarredthe P claimasserted.Weaffirm. <  _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed; d CauseRemanded  P   #,Xi@#Xi@X.,HoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand ( D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined.  DavidI._Komisar_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,ThomasA._Smythe_  GrantC._Glassford_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,PhilJonesand_McFarlin_ԀWoods,_L.L.C._ t  OPINION #,XXi@#Xi@X, L  #,XXi@ #  Xi@X,  ThecasepresentlyonappealwasoriginatedbyThomasA._Smythe_,whosuedPhilJonesand $"t! _McFarlin_ԀWoods,_L.L.C._ԀLaterhefiledaseparatesuitagainstDonald_Cowan_,whichwas #`" consolidatedwithhisearliersuit. #L#   ThesuitonappealagainstMr._Cowan_Ԁisappealableasofright,eventhoughconsolidated, %$!% byvirtueoftheTrialCourtenteringaRule54order. &"&   ThesuitseeksdamagesforwillfullyinterferingwiththecontractualrelationsbetweenMr. (#( _Smythe_ԀandPhilJonesinconnectionwiththepurchaseanddevelopmentofcertainrealestate. )$)   TheTrialCourtfoundthatMr._Smythe_'ssuitwasbarredbythethreeyearStatuteof \+&+ LimitationsandgrantedMr._Cowan_'smotionforsummaryjudgment. H,',  4-(- _  Mr.Smythe'ssingleissueonappealisthattheTrialCourtwasinerroringrantingthe  motion.    ArecentopinionofourSupremeCourt,Staplesv.CBL&Associates15S.W.3d83,89 t (Tenn.2000),hasrestatedthestandardforourreviewofsummaryjudgmentsgrantedbyatrial ` court: L   Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummary $ t judgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthe  ` lightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonable  L  inferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2d  8  at426;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat21011.Courtsshouldgrantasummary $  judgmentonlywhenboththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefacts   permitareasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,   913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26   (Tenn.1995).     Thedeterminativefactsastotheissueraisedinthiscaseareundisputed.Mr.Smythe,the \ Defendantintheearlierconsolidatedcase,PhilJonesandJimRiggs,werepartnersinaPartnership H knownas"TriangleDevelopment,"whichwasformedtodeveloprealestate,includingaproject 4 knownasMcFarlinWoods,L.L.C.  p   Mr.Cowan,whowantedtobecomeamemberofthePartnership,wasrejectedbythe H Partnership,butMr.Jonesofferedhimanopportunitytobecomeaninvestor,whichhesubsequently 4 acceptedontheconditionthatneitherMr.SmythenorMr.Riggsbeassociatedwiththe   development.     ThiswasaccomplishedbythePartnershipbeingdissolved,asweunderstandit,atthe  instanceofMr.Jones.Uponthisoccurring,Mr.Smythe,asalreadynoted,filedsuitagainstMr.  JonesandMcFarlinWoods,containingfourcountsbreachoffiduciaryduties,breachofcontract, l quantummeruitandnegligentmisrepresentation. X    Somesixmonthslater,Mr.Smythefiledthesuitpresentlyonappeal. 0"    WhilethereisaspecificStatuterelativetoprocurementofbreachofcontract,T.C.A.4750 $X" 109,thecomplaintdoesnotmentiontheStatute,whichhasbeenheldtobeacodificationofthe $D # commonlaw,exceptfortheamountofdamagesrecoverable. %0!$   WhetherthecommonlawcauseofactionhasbeensubsumedintheStatutewearenotcalled '#& upontodecidebecauseitappearsbothpartiesagreethatathreeyearStatuteofLimitationsis (#' applicabletoeither. )$(   |*%)   ThedeterminationweneedtomakeiswhetherthedepositionofMr.Smythetakeninthefirst   casefiledwassufficienttoshowthathewasuponnoticethathepossessedacauseofactionagainst  Mr.Cowan.    InthisregardMr.SmythetestifiedinadepositiontakenonJanuary29,1999(thedaybefore ` hiscomplaintagainstMr.Cowanwasfiled),asfollows: L   (83! !Q.Andwhatdidhe[PhilJones]tellyouatthemeetingofDecember29of $ t 95?  ` A.Thatwasthemeetingatthatgasconveniencestore.JimRiggsandIwere  8  presentandhesaidthatDonaldCowandidntwantusinvolved.Andhe $  effectivelyknewDonaldCowancouldcloseandfelthehadnochoicebuttogo   forwardwithDonaldCowan.   Q.Andwhatwasyourreaction?Whatdidyousay?Thatswhenyoutriedto   puttogetherthistwohundredthousand($200,000)tobuyhimout? p A.Yeah,Imean!Letmeputittoyouthisway.Whenhefirsttoldme,bottom H line,Iwasout,Jimwasout,IwasangrytothepointthatIwasntconsidering 4 anythingbutmyanger.WhenwemetonDecember29th,Iwassimplytryingto  p findawaytoredeemcommonsense.Iwasworkingundertheassumptionthat  \ PhilJonesfeltcornered,feltifhewastogoforwardwiththedevelopmenthehad H nochoicebuttodosowithDonaldCowan.Andifthepricetobepaidforgoing 4 forwardwithDonaldCowanwaseliminatingTomSmytheandJimRiggs,then   sobeit.    ....  Q.Atthatpointintime,wereyouawarewhatPhilJonespositionwasgoingto l bewiththeseotherinvestors? X  A.IwasawareasofDecember29ththatTrianglenolongerexistedandJim 0"  RiggsandIwereoutandthemosthewouldgivemewouldbesixpercent(6%) #l! onlotsA,B,C,E,andF. $X"  .... %0!$ Q.Whatpromptedyoualltocomeupwiththistwohundredthousanddollars '#& ($200,000)proposal? (#'   )$( A.BecauseattheDecember29thmeetingPhilJonesrepresentedthathehadno  choicebuttocutJimRiggsandIoutofthedealbecausethatiswhatPhil!Imean  DonaldCowan!insistedon.     Itisclearfromtheforegoingthathewasawarethathehadbeenwrongedbut, ` notwithstandingthistestimony,heargueshiscauseofactiondidnotaccrueuntilhesufferedsome L  damagesasaresultofMr.Cowanprocuringabreachofcontract.Caselaw,however,doesnot 8  supporthisinsistence.Twocases,Greenev.THGC,Inc.,915S.W.2d809(Tenn.Ct.App.1995), $ t andWilkinsv.ThirdNationalBankinNashville,884S.W.2d758(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),  ` specificallyholdtheStatutebeginstorunfromthedatethewrongfulactoccurred,notfromthedate  L  damagesaresuffered.  8    InreachingtheforegoingconclusionwehaveconsideredthecasescitedbyMr.Smythe   whichhecontendsholdotherwise.Webelievethefirstisinapposite,andthesecondsupportsthe   positionofMr.Cowan.Wyattv.ABest,Company,910S.W.2d851(Tenn.1995),wasatort   actionseekingdamagesforinjurycausedbytheplaintiffsexposuretoasbestos.TheSupremeCourt   held,andweagree,thatinatortsuitseekingdamages,injuryisacomponentofthecauseofaction. p InWyattthePlaintiffbroughtsuitwithinoneyearoflearningthathewasinjured. \   Intheothercase,Wrightv.Wright,832S.W.2d542(Tenn.Ct.App.1991),acontract 4 action,thisCourtheldthat inordertoserveananticipatorybreachofcontractofrepudiation,the  p wordsandconductofthecontractingpartymustamounttoatotalandunqualifiedrefusaltoperform  \ thecontract. H   Mr.Smythe,however,arguesthatthefactMr.Jonesofferedtotransferhisoptiontopurchase   thepropertyinquestiontoaPartnershipofwhichMr.Smythewasamember  #  1      ׀foraconsideration   of$200,000showsthattherehadnotbeena totalandunqualifiedrefusaltoperformthecontract.  Wedonotunderstandhowtheofferofanothercontractaltersthefactthattherehadbeenarefusal  toperformthefirstcontractorwouldcauseMr.Smythetojustifiablydelayfilinghissuitagainst  Mr.Cowan. l   WealsopointoutthatMr.CowanwasnotapartytotheoffermadebyMr.Jonestotransfer D! hisoptionand,infact,opposedhismakingsuchanoffer.Weaccordinglyfindthisinsistencetobe 0"  withoutmerit. #l!   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisaffirmedandthecause $D # remandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.Smytheandhis %0!$ surety. &"% Ї   `     h   _________________________________________ t    `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE `