WPC# 6_]8B C׋+RU a$oG.'Y¶ )ؒj8[*J%kNefh+`@ K!'oGꦙMW,a#BB^ޱcc"KzcI9,:6'G2Ȃ$9"M~IԾpd1ߔtQ(-F"n8J E}%;9&葪&e1:sڹeNCFe}Xp]؏ m0lPnyrQ7e-B"Y -;rb 1ƮT^n< SŬΗxnHw31=Maip0>! @h9`~<' p 5rFuO<Ҩ tp}$ !T\4_ b&!V1М3l2F*?>CPԢb:U2b#\ % U@# 0c U)N 0D9 ^ } z  U,  :,WNw4E mb 0 B   0& D5 D- 0K,, ASw 0 0D4 AxHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(hH  Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0  r)L  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,  AZArial   R7v$      2    _ * #  *~#Thisprovisionwashandwrittenandstatedasfollows: RequiresapprovalbyMickieDavisofworkat  _Coldwell_ԄBanker.Moneyconfirmedas_escrowed_ԀatUnionPlantersBankMickieDavisonlypartyrequiredtoauthorize t release.Theprovisioncontainedadditionaltermsthatweremarkedthrough.## 0 R7v$      3    _ * #  *~#Thereissomedisagreementoverwhenthethirtydayperiodbeganaswellaswhetheritwasextendedtoforty  fivedays.Regardlessofwhichtimeperiodapplied,thedeficiencieswerenotcompleteduntilApril1,1997,aftermore t thanfortyfivedayshadpassed.## " R7v$      1    _ * #  *~#Theseadditionaltermsandagreementswerememorializedbyhandwrittennotationsontheoriginalletter.  Thesenotationsincludedthefollowingdates:January6,January7,January20,andJanuary##23.##ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R7v$      4    _T ENN# #.R.C IV# #.PRule56.04providesinrelevantpart: ...thejudgmentsoughtshallberenderedforthwithif  thepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,show t thatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatterof 8 law.~( 2ţ3|xU- -(|G27v$ !.8Nmdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Nmdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Nmdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Nmdd8     _  Nm8 XXdd8  @ K NmINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#NmK #Ԉ &   APRIL2000Session L X XNm #NmXX #UNIONPLANTERSBANKOFMIDDLETENNESSEEv.CAROL J _CHOATE_,etal.X XNm   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.971584III;TheHonorableEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199901268_COA_ԄR3CVFiled_August_Ԁ31,2000   AV) ` dE<` A      X XXX ThisappealarisesfromabreachofcontractcasefiledagainstMickieDavis( Davis)byCarole  _Choate_Ԁ( _Choate_)._Choate_ԀallegedthatDavisbreachedhercontractualandfiduciarydutiesby x authorizingreleaseoffundsto_Rochford_ԀRealty( _Rochford_)foraconstructionproject.Thetrial d courtgrantedDavismotionforsummaryjudgment._Choate_Ԁappeals.#X XXX ;##NmXX #X XNm P / Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  (x   #NmX #X X.NmAlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCrawford,P.J.,andFarmer,J., P joined. < RobertA.Anderson,Nashville,forAppellant  MarcyS._Hardee_,Franklin,forAppellee   OPINION #NmXX #X XNm t  #NmXX  #X XNm  X XXX OnJuly7,1995,_Choate_Ԁcontractedwith_Rochford_ԀRealtytobuildaresidenceonpropertyowned L"! by_Choate_.Theconstructionagreementincludedaprovisionforpartiestosubmitanycontract 8#" disputetobindingarbitration.UnionPlantersBank( Bank)providedtheconstructionloan $$t# financingfortheproject. %` $   OnDecember17,1996,_Choate_Ԁsentaletterto_Rochford_Ԁoutliningconstructiondeficiencies. &8"& Pursuanttotheletter,thepartiesreachedanewagreementasevidencedbynotationsontheletter.  #  1       '$#' Aspartoftheagreement,partiesdecidedtousetheservicesofMickieDavis,alocalrealestate ($( agent,todeterminewhether punchlistdeficienciesweresuccessfullycompleted.Inaddition,a )$) sumofthirteenthousandfivehundreddollars($13,500.00)wasputintoescrowatBank.Underthe *%* agreement,Davishadthesoleauthoritytoapprovecompletionoflistitemdeficienciesandauthorize  releaseofthemoneyinescrow._  #  2      _ԀThesedeficienciesweretobecompletedwithinthirtydaysofthe  newagreement.  #  3          OnMarch18,1997,_Choate_ԀnotifiedBankthatthetermsofthenewagreementhadnotbeen ` met.Onthesameday,DavissentalettertoBankauthorizingthereleaseofmostofthe_escrowed_ L  money($13,051.85)to_Rochford_;theletterstatedthatonlyfourofthepunchlistdeficiencieswere 8  notcompleted.Insteadofreleasingthefundsto_Rochford_,Bankfiledaninterpleaderactioninthe $ t DavidsonCountyChanceryCourt,namingboth_Choate_Ԁand_Rochford_Ԁasdefendants._Choate_  ` respondedbyfilingacrosscomplaintagainst_Rochford_ԀandathirdpartycomplaintagainstDavis.  L  Specifically,_Choate_ԀclaimedthatDavisbreachedbothacontractualandfiduciarydutyby  8  authorizingpartialreleaseofthefundsinescrow. $    Both_Choate_Ԁand_Rochford_Ԁsubmittedissuestobindingarbitrationasrequiredunderoriginal   contract.OnAugust19,1998,thearbitratorawarded_Choate_Ԁmoneydamagesintheamountof   twelvethousandninehundredtwentytwodollarsandfiftycents($12,922.50).Arbitratorawarded   _Rochford_Ԁthirteenthousandfivehundredtwentysixdollarsandeightyfivecents($13,526.85)plus p interest.Pursuanttotheaward,_Choate_Ԁwasorderedtopay_Rochford_Ԁsixhundredfourdollarsand \ thirtyfivecents($604.35)plusinterest. H    `   ThecourtbelowenteredanorderconfirmingarbitratorsdecisiononNovember6,1998.The  p ordernotedthatitdidnotdisposeofissuesremainingbetween_Choate_ԀandDavis._Choate_Ԁfileda  \ motionforjudgmentonthepleadingsorpartialsummaryjudgmentontheseissueswhichthecourt H denied.Davisfiledasummaryjudgmentmotionallegingboththatshehadcompliedwiththe 4 contractrequirementsandthat_Choate_Ԁwasbarredfromactionbyvirtueofthearbitratorsaward.The   courtbelowgrantedDavismotion,holdingthat_Choate_ԀhadnotbeendamagedbyDavis   authorizationbecausethefundswerenotactuallyreleased._Choate_Ԁappeals.    Onappeal,_Choate_ԀassertsthatthetrialcourterredinholdingthattheclaimsagainstDavis  wereinconsistentwiththearbitratorsawardandthatthecourterredingrantingDavissummary l judgmentmotion.Inaddition,_Choate_Ԁassertsthatthetrialcourterredinholdingthat_Choate_Ԁdidnot X  sustaindamagesbyDavisauthorizationofthefundsrelease. D!     Analysis $X"  $D #      Although_Choate_Ԁassertstwoissuesonappeal,wefindinnecessarytoaddressonlywhether  thetrialcourterredingrantingDavismotionforsummaryjudgment.Whetherthetrialcourterred  ingrantingaRule56MotionforSummaryJudgmentispurelyaquestionoflaw.SeeT#NmXX  #NmENN#Nm!#X XNm.R._C#NmXX ,"#NmIV_#Nm"#X XNm.  P.Rule56.04. #  4      ׀Therefore,onreview,nopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothetrialcourts t judgment.Ourtaskislimitedtodeterminingwhethertherequirementsforsummaryjudgmenthave ` beenmet._Cowden_Ԁv._Sovran_ԀBank/CentralSouth,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991). L    Inordertoprevailonamotionforsummaryjudgment,theremustbenogenuineissuewith $ t regardtothematerialfactsandthemovingpartymustbeentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflawon  ` theundisputedfacts.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);Andersonv.Standard  L  RegisterCo.,857S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993).The_movant_Ԁhastheburdenofprovingthatits  8  motionsatisfiestheserequirements._Downen_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523,524 $  (Tenn.1991).Toproperlysupportitsmotion,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmativelynegatean   essentialelementofthenon-movingparty'sclaimorconclusivelyestablishanaffirmativedefense.   Ifthemovingpartysuccessfullynegatesaclaimedbasisfortheaction,thenon-movingpartymay   notsimplyrestuponthepleadings,butmustofferprooftoestablishtheexistenceoftheessential   elementsoftheclaim.Staplesv._CBL_Ԁ&Associates,Inc.,No.E199700033SCR11CV,2000WL p 291431,at*4(Tenn.Mar.20,2000)citing_McCarley_Ԁv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d585, \ 588(Tenn.1998);Robinsonv._Omer_,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997). H   Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummaryjudgmentcontextare  p alsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmoving  \ partyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesinthenonmovingparty'sfavor.Byrd,847 H S.W.2dat210-11.Withtheforegoinginmind,wenowturntothefactsinthiscase. 4   Neitherpartydisputesthematerialfactsrelevanttothisissue._Choate_Ԁand_Rochford_   contractedfortheconstructionofahomeon_Choate_sproperty.Thiscontractwaslatermodified  toextendthetimeperiodandtomakethecompletedconstructionsubjecttoDavisapproval.  Althoughalltheconstructionwasnotcompletedbythespecifieddate,Davisauthorizedtherelease  ofmostofthe_escrowed_Ԁfunds.Basedonthedisputebetween_Choate_Ԁand_Rochford_,Bankdidnot l releasethefunds.Thereafter,_Choate_Ԁand_Rochford_Ԁsettledtheirclaimsinarbitration._Choate_Ԁsought X  recoveryagainstDavisforbreachofcontractandbreachoffiduciaryduty.Thereisnogenuineissue D! astothematerialfactsinthiscase.Therefore,Davishasmetthefirstprongofthetwopartsummary 0"  judgmentstandard.Wenowturntothesecondprong:whetherDavisisentitledtojudgmentasa #l! matteroflaw. $X"   Basedonthepositionsoftheparties,Davismayprevailonlyifshecannegateanessential %0!$ elementof_Choate_sbreachofcontractandfiduciarydutyclaim.Proofofdamagesisanessential &"% elementofboththesecausesofaction.Thecourtbelowfoundthat_Choate_Ԁhadnotsuffereddamages  byvirtueofDavisauthorizationofthereleaseofthe_escrowed_Ԁfundandthat_Choate_Ԁcouldtherefore  notprevail.Onappeal,_Choate_Ԁarguesthatshedidsufferdamagesbecauseoftheexpenseofdealing  withtheinterpleadersuitbroughtbyBank.Wedonotagree. t   _Choate_Ԁbasesher damageelementonanimpliedindemnitytheory,arguingthatshe L  sufferedbyvirtueoftheinterpleadersuitfiledbyBank.SeeWinterv.Smith,914S.W.2d527,541 8  (Tenn.Ct.App.1995)citingHouseboatingCorp.v.Marshall,553S.W.2d588,589(Tenn.1977) $ t (holdingthereisanimpliedobligationtoindemnitywhentheobligationisanecessaryelementof  ` thepartiesrelationship,orwhenjusticeandfairnessdemandtheburdenofpayingforthelossbe  L  shiftedtothepartywhosefaultorresponsibilityisqualitativelydifferentfromtheotherparties).  8  _Choate_ԀassertsthatDavisauthorizationofthereleaseofthe_escrowed_Ԁfundsproximatelycausedthe $  Banksinitiationoftheinterpleaderaction.Fromourreviewoftherecord,itseemscertainthat   Davisauthorizationdidnotcausethedisputethatledtotheinterpleadersuit.Rather,Davisacthad   littleornoeffectonthepartiesposition.BankdidnotreleasethefundspursuanttoDavis   authorization.Bankfiledtheinterpleadersuitasaresultoftheongoingdisputebetween_Choate_   and_Rochford_,andinordertoavoidliabilityforthe_escrowed_Ԁfunds. p   Basedontheforegoing,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterringrantingDavismotionfor H summaryjudgment.Davisactiondidnotdirectlyorproximatelycauseanyrecoverabledamageto 4 _Choate_.Therefore,_Choate_ԀcouldnotprevailonherclaimsagainstDavis.Accordingly,theaction  p ofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.  \    Conclusion 4 #>   Forthereasonssetforthabove,weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantofDavisMotionfor   SummaryJudgment.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,Carol_Choate_,forwhichexecution  mayissue,ifnecessary.   #X XXX " ##NmXX "#X XNm   `     h     ___________________________________ $D #    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE