WPC  ԇc-ҲNdΞҵVܑ${|XfNAl};׭p5YU bCt8//gU]?WiL#IĹq u&ce QUDHyK8m3T쏤M܋Б>cZ;7_h]3rX(tX@*AOpmN6su0Ha8l?\UPaT")vdVgxjP5(V )ؒ26V/H$}o)b.x_ u{z ,FM)..~Vjwct:0J]- W6m"7io\4!3蕁ދyj%RnrS;!춊X:Cdr?8XKd&˗foK_q 9H3hbR[^zPFj'1.pu׫qfmTkwNz_*# LU :W % 0(b w@4 .6U:666666666666666666666 AQp 0D 0D 0D  D/S B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - -D.D/D0D12e345Ӏ?_#Q'3|x? ""   XXXX &X X   Ad FILED XX &  July15,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  2222TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7     XX  Ӝ???55r )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  r?55@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE??@(ATNASHVILLE XX Ԉ  MARKS.TIDMANand   8   )   EVELYNJ.TIDMAN,   8   )   ??  0      8   ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, 8   ) zr    0      8   )  AppealNo. `X    0      8   )  01A019708CV00380 F>  VS.  0      8   ) ,$  ?t )>.*jx` `@E` 8ttxP/! tߛ?  0      8   )  DavidsonCircuit     0      8   )  No.97C176   THESALVATIONARMY,   8   )   @      H!  #    JAMESR.WORTHY,BERTHA 8   )  WORTHY,KENNETHE.BREWER,  )  FREDRUTH,22     8   )22    0      8   ) Defendants/Appellees. 8   ) \T @ APPEALEDFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@#ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@X X THEHONORABLEWALTERC.KURTZ,JUDGELARRYL.CRAIN101WestparkDrive,Suite250Brentwood,Tennessee37027 AttorneyforPlaintiffs/AppellantsL.GINOMARCHETTI,JR.WILLIAMG.MCCASKILL,JR.TAYLOR,PHILBIN,PIGUE,MARCHETTÌ&BENNETT,PLLCOneUnionStreetP.O.Box198169Nashville,Tennessee372198169 AttorneysforDefendants/Appellees@$AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.CAIN,J. XX@tt(OPINION XXԈ ;x4: Ї  0 Two22formerSalvation22Armyofficers,a22husbandand22wifewhohadbeendemotedanddischarged,suedtheirsuperiorofficersand22The22SalvationArmyitselfforinvasionofprivacy,intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,negligentinflictionof22emotional22distress,andoutrageousconduct.TheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountydismissedthecomplaintfor22failure22tostatea22claimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.22Weaffirm,andhold,inaddition,thatthedefendantsactions22wereprotectedby22theFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.@- I.  h`   0 Theplaintiffs,MarkandEvelynTidman,werecommissionedaslieutenantsin22The22SalvationArmysSouthernTerritory.Afterservingat22community2222centers22inBirminghamandSelma,Alabama,theTidmansweretransferredtoNashvilleunderthecommandofMajorJamesWorthyandhiswife,MajorBerthaWorthy.  0 Thefollowingfactsareallegedinthecomplaint.22Werecitethemasiftheyweretrue,aswearecompelledtodoinrulingonthemotiontodismiss.22Cornpropst22v.Sloan,528S.W.2d188(Tenn.1975).Wehastentoadd,however,that l'd $ theyareonlyallegations.  0 Prior22tocomingto22Nashville,22Mr.Tidmanhadsoughtandreceivedpermissiontoattendoutsidecounseling22forapersonalproblem22,22under22The22SalvationArmysmedical22coverage.Shortly22afterarrivinginNashville,Mrs.TidmanwasapproachedbyBerthaWorthyregardingarumoraboutMr.Tidman.Mrs.WorthyassuredMrs.TidmanthatshewasactingasMrs.Tidmanspastorandthatthedetailsdiscussed wouldnotleavetheroom.Relyingontheseassurances,Mrs.Tidmanconfidedto22Mrs.22Worthythatherhusbandhadconfessedoncetohavingan22extramaritalaffair.22Mrs.WorthythenrecommendedthattheTidmans22meet22withher h9`28 andherhusbandthenextday.22Duringthismeeting22,22MajorJames22Worthy22assuredtheTidmansthattheywerespeakingconfidentiallyandthathewasactinginapastoralcapacity.22However,22Mr.WorthyberatedandinterrogatedMarkTidmaninanaccusatorymanner;22he22demandedaconfessionabouttheaffairfromMarkTidman;and22he22statedtheonlywayforMr.Tidmantosavefacewastoresign.Mr.Tidmanrefusedtoconfess,answeringonlythathehadtoldhiswifeeverythingsheneededtoknowandthattheywerecommittedtomarriagecounseling.  0 Ataboutthesametime,EdwardLaity,22The22SalvationArmysTerritorialCounselorinAtlanta,contactedMr.Tidmansoutside22counselor,22seekingtodiscoverthedetailsofthecounselingsessions.  0 InNovemberof1995,KennethBrewer,22The22SalvationArmysDivisionalCommander,toldMrs.TidmansfatheroftherumorthatMarkTidmanwasengagedinanongoingaffair.Mrs.Tidmansfatherconfronted22Mrs.22Tidman2222abouttheallegation.Mr.Brewersmotivationwas22allegedlyto22causeariftintheTidmanfamily,toinflictsevereemotionalinjuryonMarkTidman,andtocausehimtoresign.  0 InJanuaryof1996,FredRuth,the22Director22of22Personnel22for22The22SalvationArmy,summonedtheplaintiffstoameetingin22Nashville,byfalsely2222representingtothem22thatthepurposeofthemeetingwasapersonnelinterview.Instead,theTidmanswereconfrontedbyMr.Ruth,MajorBrewer,andMajor22James Worthy,22who,again,triedtocoerceMr.Tidmanintoconfessinghisinfidelity.Inthe 704 meeting,Mr.RuthrevealedthathehadlearnedofMr.TidmanspasthistoryofpastoralcounselingfromMr.Laity.   0 Mr.andMrs.Tidmanwerelaterdismissedfromtheirpositionsin22The22Salvation22Armyandwere22toldtovacatetheirlivingquartersintwodays.Mr.RuthdisclosedtoMrs.TidmansfatherthedetailsoftheJanuarymeeting.@- II.  (    0 TheTidmanssuedJamesandBertha22Worthy,22KennethBrewer,andFredRuthforinvasionofprivacy,intentionalandnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistressandoutrageousconduct.Theynamed22The22SalvationArmyitselfonthetheoryofrespondeatsuperior.  0 ThedefendantsfiledamotionunderTenn.R.2222Civ2222.P.12todismisstheactionbecause(1)thedefendantsactionswereprotectedbytheFirstand22Fourteenth22AmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionand(2)thecomplaintfailedtostatea22claimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted.22Thetrialjudge,inawrittenopinion,heldthatthefactualrecordwouldnotsupportaconclusionthatthereligiousfreedomclausesoftheUnitedStatesConstitution22protectedthedefendants.But2222thetrialjudgedidholdthat22thecomplaintfailedtostatea22claim22underanyofthetheoriesadvancedbythe22plaintiffs.@zz, III. 22 (2 +. 22 @WW%InvasionofPrivacy  4-0   0 AlthoughtheTennesseecourtsearlierrecognizedthetortofinvasionofprivacy,Martinv.Senators,Inc.,418S.W.2d660(Tenn.1967),thiscourtmore 926 recentlyadoptedSec.22652A22oftheRestatement(Second)ofTortsasthebasisforthe  action.Majorv.Charter22Lakeside22Hosp.,22Shelby22LawNo.42,filedatJackson,Aug.  31,1990.The22Tidmans22assertonappealthattheircasefallswithintwooftheRestatementscategories:(1)thepublicdisclosureofprivateinformation(Sec.22652D22),   and(2)anunreasonableintrusionupontheseclusionofanother(Sec.22652B22).  0 Thekeytothefirstcategoryistheword public.InMajor,wesaidthat H@  theRestatementrequiredadisclosuretothepublicatlargeortosomanypersons (  thatthemattermustberegardedassubstantiallycertaintobecomeoneofpublicknowledge.Major,slipop.at*9.SeealsoBeardv.22Akzona22,517F.22Supp22.128(E.D.  Tenn.1981).  0 ThecomplaintdoesnotallegethatanyprivateinformationwasdisclosedtoanyoneoutsideTheSalvationArmycommandexceptMrs.22Tidman22sfather(whowashimselfaformerofficerinTheSalvationArmy).Therefore,thecomplaintdoesnotstateacauseofactionunderSection652(D).  0 AstotheunreasonableintrusioncategorydescribedinSection652(B),theTidmansargueonappealthatthedefendants intrudedintotheirpersonalandfamilysolitudeundertheguiseofpastoralcounselingwhentheirtruemotivewastoinflictemotionalsuffering.Wehavereadthecomplaintandcannotfindthefactsonwhichthisconclusioncouldbebased.ThecomplaintdoesstatethatMr.LaityadvisedMrs.Tidmanthatshewouldbeassignedtoanewlocationifshedecidedtoleaveherhusband.But,thecomplaintdoesnotallegethatthedefendantstriedtoseparatetheTidmans,orthatthedefendantssetoutonadeliberatequesttodiscovertheintimatedetailsoftheTidmansmarriagefornoofficialpurpose.Theinformation soughtbythedefendantsrelatedtoafactthataffectedMr.Tidmansabilitytoserve 704 effectivelyasanofficerinTheSalvationArmy,andalltheallegedinquiriestookplaceatwork,withintheofficialcirclethathadtomakethatdetermination.   0 ThiscaseisdifferentfromHesterv.Barnett,723S.W.2d544(Mo.App.   1987)wherethecomplaintallegedthattheHesterspastor gainedaccesstotheHesterhomethroughthepretenseascounselortoassistinthecorrectionofthechildrensbehavior,whenthetruemotivewastoharmtheHestersbythedisclosureoftheinformationobtainedthroughguile.723S.W.2dat563.Thatallegation,takenastrue,wasconsideredbythecourtassufficienttosatisfythethreeelementsofatortofinvasionofprivacy:(1)theexistenceofasecretandprivatesubjectmatter;(2)arightintheplaintiffstokeepthatsubjectmatterprivate;and(3)theobtainmentbythedefendantofinformationaboutthesubjectmatterthroughunreasonablemeans.723S.W.2dat562.  0 Forthereasonsstatedabove,wedonotthinktheallegationsinthecomplaintsatisfyanyoftheseelements.ASalvationArmyofficersclaimthathehasarighttokeephisconductsecretmusthaveaverylimitedscopewhenthatconductaffectshisabilitytoservehisreligiousemployer.Wewilladdressinanotherpartofthisopiniontheclaimthatthedefendantusedunreasonablemethodstoobtainthisallegedprivateinformation.222222@oo-22 IV.22 h.`'* 22@( ( InflictionofEmotionalDistress/OutrageousConduct  H0@),   0 Althoughthecomplaintcontainsaclaimfornegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress,allofthematerialallegationsinvolvetheintentional,deliberateactsofthedefendants.Therefore,weconclude,asthetrialcourtdid,thatthecomplaintdoesnotstateaclaimfornegligence. 926 Ї  0 Theintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressandoutrageousconductdescribethesametort.Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618n.3(Tenn.1997).The  elementsofthetortare:(1)theconductcomplainedofmustbeintentionalorreckless;(2)theconductmustbesooutrageousthatitisnottoleratedbycivilizedsociety;and(3)theconductcomplainedofmustresultinseriousmentalinjury.Id.  at622.Thedefendantsconductmustbesoextremeindegreeastogobeyondallboundsofdecency.Medlinv.AlliedInvestmentCo.,398S.W.2d270(Tenn.1966). H@  Thecourtsdutyinthefirstinstanceistoapplythesestandardsandtodetermine whetherthedefendantsconductmayreasonablyberegardedassoextremeandoutrageousastopermitrecovery....Id.at275.    0 Forthereasonswehavealreadydiscussed,weareoftheopinionthatthetrialjudgewascorrectinconcludingthatthedefendantsconductdidnotrisetotheactionablelevel.  h` @-V.@Y Y TheInterferencewiththeCounselorPatientRelationship  %    0 WetreatthissubjectseparatelybecauseitisperhapsthemostseriousandbecauseitrelatestoallofthewrongsallegedbytheTidmans.  0 InAlbertsv.Devine,479N.E.2d113(Mass.1985),thecourtfounda h.`'* sustainablecauseofactionagainstaministerschurchsuperiorsforinducingtheministerspsychiatristtorevealconfidentialinformationtothem.InPartVIofthisopinionwedistinguishthatcasefromthisone.AfurtherandperhapsmorefundamentaldifferenceresultsfromacloseinspectionoftheTidmansallegations.ThecomplaintonlyallegesthatMr.LaitysoughtconfidentialinformationfromMr.Tidmanstherapist.Itdoesnotallegethathediscoveredanything.Inaddition,Mr. 926 LaityslettertoMr.Tidmanscounsel3or3ismadeanexhibitanditreadsinpartasfollows:0 Idoappreciateandrespecttheconfidentialrelationshipthatmustexistbetweencounselorandcounselee,andatnotimewouldIwanttointrudeonthatrelationship.ThatsamerespectappliestoyourworkwithCaptainMarkTidman.MyreasonthereforeforthetelephonecallseveralweeksagoandthisletteristhatsomereportisrequiredbyTheSalvationArmywhichwillhelpustoascertaintheactiveparticipationandthebenefitsreceivedfromthecounselingprocess.Thereareseveralfactorswhichwebelievewouldgivereasonforrequestingsomeresponsefromyou:1.  Theindividualreceivingcounselingispayingno  personalfundstoreceivethisbenefit.TheSalvationArmy,initscareandconcernforthisofficeriswillingtocoverallexpensesconnectedwiththesessions.2.  Anyofficerreceivingsuchbenefitsunderstandsthat  somebasicinformationwillbesharedwithmyoffice.Noconfidentialinformationisrequestedinthisreport.3.  InthecaseofCaptainTidman,hehasbeenin h` counselingsessionswithyousinceJanuaryof1993onaregularbasis.Hopefully,somepositivechangesshouldhavetakenplaceduringthattime.Now,havingsharedwithmesomeaspectsofhisownlifeandthetraumaswhichhaveseverelyaffectedhim,Icanwellunderstandthattheprocessofworkingthroughallofthatmusttaketimeandgreatpatience.Changesmustoccurinternallyandtoexpectradicalchangeexternallymustbeanticipatedwithforbearanceandwithsomecautionlesttheyexacerbatetheemotionalscarswithwhichheisdealing.Fromanadministrativeposition,TheSalvationArmyisconcernedthatafterthislengthoftime,thereseemstobelittleornochangesinhisunderstandingofpeopleandtheirneeds,ofworkingrelationships,orhisowninterpersonalresponses.Inyourtelephonemessagetome,youimpliedthatTheSalvationArmyleadershipneededtotakewhateveractionstheydeemednecessaryindealingwithCaptainTidman.Thatstanceonyourpartratherconcernsme.EvidentlyMarkhassharedmuchinformationwithyouregardinghisfeelingstowardadministrationandhisappointments.Thatisasitshouldbe,however,hecannotbetotallyobjectiveandnoneofuswouldbeinlikecircumstances.  815 Itisnotmydesiretosharewithyouinformationthatwould biasyourworkwithhim,howeversomeinformationfromyouwouldhelptheleadershiptoknowhowtorespondtohiminthecomingdays.Iwouldappreciateyourgivingmeatleastthebasicinformationontheattachedreport.Inaddition,someindicationastoafutureaffirmativeconclusionofthecounselingprocesswouldbehelpful.Thiswillbeheldasconfidential.IfyoudesiretotalkwithMarkastothecontentsofyourreport,wewillbepleasedtocoveranyexpensesinvolvedwiththatsharing.Yourtimelyresponsetothisrequestismostappreciated.0 Wecannotfindintheletterarequestthatthecounselorrevealconfidentialinformation.Infact,theletterrecognizesthatthecounselorcannotrevealinformationgiveninconfidence,anditconcludesbyurgingthecounselortodiscusstheinformationsoughtwithMr.Tidman.And,aswehavepointedout,thecomplaintdoesnotallegethatanybreachofconfidenceoccurred.  xp @oo-VI.22@dd&ReligiousFreedom  $   0 TheSalvationArmyisachurchforFirstAmendmentpurposes.22McClure22 ' # v.TheSalvationArmy,460F.222d22553(225th22Cir.1972).Bypreventingthegovernment )"% frominterferingwiththefreeexerciseofreligion,the22First22Amendmentlimitstheroleofcivilcourtsinresolvingcontroversiesthataffectthechurchanditsmembers.22Serbian22EasternOrthodoxDiocesev.22Milivojevich22,426U.S.696(1976).Inmatters X/P(+ involving discipline,faith,internalorganization,orecclesiasticalrule,customorlawthecivilcourtsareboundtoacceptthedecisionsofareligiousorganization.Id.at 3,/ 22713.22  6/3   0 However,notallactionsofchurch22officialsare22freefromstate interference.PresbyterianChurchv.HullMemorial22Presbyterian22Church,393U.S.  440(1969);Albertsv.22Devine22,47922N.E.2d22113(Mass.1985);Bearv.Reformed   MennoniteChurch,341A.222d22105(Pa.1975);22Guinn22v.ChurchofChristof22Collinsville22,   775P.222d22766(Okla.1989).Somecourtsdecide22disputes2222involvingreligiousorganizationsif22theycanberesolvedbytheapplicationof neutralprinciplesoflaw.Mosesv.DioceseofColorado,863P.222d22310(Colo.1993). H@    0 Mostcourtsmakeadistinctionbetween22casesinvolvingthereligiousorderanditsclergyandtortcasesinvolvinglaymembers.With22respectto22theemploymentofclergy,22thecourtsarenearlyunanimousinholdingthatthecivilcourtscannot involvethemselvesinreviewingtheterminationofclergyfortheologicalordisciplinaryreasons.22Higgins22v.Maher,210Cal.App.223d221168at1170(Cal.App.  1989).Asthecourtsaidin22McClure22v.TheSalvationArmy, h` 8 80 ! !  Therelationshipbetweenanorganizedchurchanditsministersisitslifeblood.Theministeristhechiefinstrumentbywhichthechurchseekstofulfillitspurpose.Matterstouchingthisrelationshipmustnecessarilyberecognizedasofprimeecclesiastical22concern. 0 0  460F.2dat5589.Itis22forthisreasonthattheTidmansvoluntarilydismissedtheirclaimsbasedontheterminationofemployment.Theyrecognizedthat22The22SalvationArmysdeterminationofasufficientreasonfordischargeisbeyondthereviewingpowerofthecourts. [T]hesupervisorypoweroftheciviltribunalsmaynotbeinvokedwhentheonlypropertyinvolvedisthelossofclericalofficeandthesalaryincidentthereto.Watsonv.Jones,80U.S.679(1871). H0@),   0 Tortclaims,however,donotenjoythesamedegreeofprotectionfromstatepower.SeeAlbertsv.22Devine22,47922N.E.2d22113(Mass.1985);22Guinn22v.Church 5.2 ofChristof22Collinsville22,775P.222d22766(Okla.1989).In22Sherbert2222v.22Verner,374U.S. 704 398(1963),the22Supreme2222Court22heldthatactionsposing somesubstantialthreatof 926 publicsafety,peace,orordermaybesubjecttogovernmentalregulationeventhoughpromptedbyreligiousbeliefsorprinciples.374U.S.at403.The22intentionalandmaliciousalienation22ofaffectionofonespousefromtheotherthreatenspublicwelfareandorderanddoesnotcomewithintheprotectionofthe22First22Amendment.Hester   v.Barnett,723S.W.2d544(Mo.App.1987). Applicationofasecularstandardto  secularconductthatistortiousisnotprohibitedbytheConstitution.Mosesv. h`  DioceseofColorado,863P.222d22310at2232022(Colo.1993). H@    0 Therearecaseshowever,inwhichtheallegedtortsoccurinthecourseoftheproceedinginvolvingdisciplineofpriestorpastor.Inonecasethecourtheldthatthe22torts22allegedwere simplytooclosetothepeculiarlyreligiousaspectsofthetransactiontobesegregatedandtreatedseparatelyassimplecivilwrongs.Higginsv.22Maher,22210Cal.App.223d221168at22117622(Cal.App.1989).Inanother,the  courtheldthatinducingaphysiciantobreachhispatientsconfidenceanddivulgeinformationtothatpatientschurchsuperiorsdidnotenjoyFirstAmendmentprotection.Albertsv.22Devine22,47922N.E.2d22113(Mass.1985). (#    0 Wearepersuadedthatthiscaseismorelike22Higgins.Fullerquotesfrom &" thatcasefollow:8 2280 ! !Higginshas22pleaded22theessentialelementsofthe22torts22ofinvasionofprivacy,defamation,andtheintentionalandnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress.Hispleadingis22plain22anddirectintermsofaccusingtheBishopandotherchurchhierarchyofunwarrantedandmaliciousconductwhichcausedhimseveredamage.22Had22theseallegationsbeensetforthwithoutthepreambleshowingtheirgenesisinthe22priestbishop22relationship,itisdoubtfultheycouldhavebeendismissedondemurrer. 0 0  22210Cal.App.3dat1175.228 80 ! !Regardlessofthechurchsmotivesorobjectives,orthecircumstancesgivingrise,wewouldprobablyagreethattortssuchasbattery,falseimprisonmentorconversioncannotbeperpetrateduponitsmemberswithcivilimpunity.Wefind,however,thatatleastinthecontextof 926 Higginssaverments,the22torts22recitedaresimplytooclosetothepeculiarlyreligiousaspectsofthetransactiontobesegregatedandtreatedseparatelyassimplecivilwrongs.Themakingofaccusationsofmisconduct;thediscussionofsamewithintheorder;therecommendationofpsychologicalormedicaltreatment;theinfliction,whetherintentionallyornegligently,ofemotionaldistressτtheseareallactivitiesandresultswhichwilloften,ifnotusually,attendthedifficultprocessbywhichpriestlyfacultiesareterminated.Ifourcivilcourtsenterupondisputesbetweenbishopsandpriestsbecauseofallegationsofdefamation,mentaldistressandinvasionofprivacy,itisdifficulttoconceivetheterminationcasewhichcouldnotresultinasustainablelawsuit. 0 0  22210Cal.App.3dat117*6*+5+.222222  0 Inthiscase,alltheallegationsofwrongdoinginvolvedconductthatoccurredinthecourseofaninvestigationconcerningMr.Tidmansfitnesstofillanofficein22The22SalvationArmy.22This22isapeculiarlyecclesiasticalundertaking,anditinvolves22The22SalvationArmysbeliefsandcorevalues.  0 Weholdthatthecomplaintshouldhavebeendismissedonthisgroundaswell.22  0 ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellants.22,,22  0      8     ____________________________  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE220022--0C01C1ONCUR:2222.̛.22_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION22/̛/22̜_____________________________4__4WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE 926 ++  XX @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE XXԈ  MARKS.TIDMANand   8   )   EVELYNJ.TIDMAN,   8   )     0      8   ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, 8   )     0      8   )  AppealNo.   VS.  0      8   )  01A019708CV00380     0      8   )     THESALVATIONARMY,   8   )  DavidsonCircuit   H!  #  |  JAMESR.WORTHY,BERTHA 8   )  No.97C176   tl  WORTHY,KENNETHE.BREWER,  ) d\ FREDRUTH,22     8 22  )  Affirmedand TL   0      8   )  Remanded D<  Defendants/Appellees. 8   ) 4, XX @uu'JUDGMENT    XX  0 Thiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromthe @8 CircuitCourtofDavidsonCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel;uponconsiderationwhereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatinthejudgmentofthetrialcourtthereisnoreversibleerror.  0 InaccordancewiththeopinionoftheCourtfiledherein,itis,therefore,orderedandadjudgedbythisCourtthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.ThecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyfortheexecutionofthejudgmentandforthecollectionofthecostsaccruedbelow.  0 CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainstMarkS.TidmanandEvelynTidman,Principals,andLarryL.22Crain22,Surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  0      8   ________________________________  0      8   HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGE  0      8   MIDDLESECTION  0      8   ________________________________  0      8   BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE  0      8   ________________________________  0      8   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE