ÿWPC] =#†fUNì %: 0(@4h| 0l‹ 0D÷U>;byUP 0DÑw 0D+ 0@oƯ 0Ju 0T¿ AO 0Db 0^¦ 0h 0rl 0|Þ 0†Z 0à 1up U,å B 0d. D3’ D/Å Bô U, U >= U6{ U*± ™Û B)tDC AMàU*-eW X”xv~ vÓŠ˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÙP 4: ?;·^:·Ì: (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡1# 3|xÂ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular- ù-&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý  (3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(Modern dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$$$$'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Times Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ€7ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔó óÌò òÔ€7¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ8 ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€7XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€0Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€0ÂÔÔ€7ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€0ÔÔ€0XÔ ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„105(1)€(Supp.€1995)€provides,€"TheÏfollowing€actions€shall€be€commenced€within€three€(3)€years€from€theÏaccruing€of€the€cause€of€action:€€(1)€€Actions€for€injuries€to€personalÏor€real€property."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„109(a)(3)€(1980)€provides,Ï"The€following€actions€shall€be€commenced€within€six€(6)€years€after€theÏcause€of€action€accrued:€.€.€.€(3)€€Actions€on€contracts€not€otherwiseÏexpressly€provided€for."ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÓ&€//X„d&ÓÑ#€//Xd#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ , ÑÔ€1ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€ ÀZ XXdÈdÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€22XÐd&ÓÖ€3Öà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJanuary€22,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ÙßL€695;+'h|ç”â `€€LßÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌGUY€ALEXANDER,€JR.,€ROYCEà à)ÌTAYLOR,€AND€SKYLINE€à àà à)ÌAPARTMENTS€PARTNERSHIP,à àà à)€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€Davidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌÒ € ÒÒ X Òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€Hon.€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€01S01„9411„CV„00147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTHIRD€NATIONAL€BANK,€à àà à)€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Defendant„Appelleeóó:à àòòà àà àFor€Plaintiffs„Appellantsóó:òòÌóóÌRobert€C.€Goodrich,€Jr.òòà àà àóóà àW.€Gary€BlackburnÌFarris,€Warfield€&€Kanaday€à àà àDavid€F.€GoreÌNashville€à à€à àà àà àà àBlackburn€&€Slobey,€P.C.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌJohn€C.€Tishlerà àà àà àà àÌNashvilleà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€D.€Melton,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboroÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€1„ÔÔ€Ôòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€1ÔÔ€1XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;€ÌCASE€REMANDED€TO€TRIAL€COURT.à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€REID,€J.à àÌÓ  ÓÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€sustaining€the€defendant's€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏon€the€ground€the€suit€is€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€This€Court€finds€the€essential€cause€of€actionÏalleged€is€breach€of€contract€rather€than€injury€to€property€and,Ïtherefore,€the€applicable€limitation€period€is€six€years€ratherÏthan€three€years.× ƒ: ××  ×ÌÓ  ÓÌI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àFor€the€purposes€of€this€appeal,€the€circumstances€ofÏthe€case,€including€the€course€of€the€negotiations€between€theÏparties€Guy€Alexander,€Jr.€and€Royce€Taylor,€d/b/a€The€SkylineÏApartments,€a€general€partnership,€and€the€Third€National€Bank,Ïare€not€disputed.€€The€plaintiff€became€the€purchaser€of€TheÏSkyline€Apartments€located€in€Gallatin,€Tennessee.€€TheÏapartments€were€encumbered€by€a€deed€of€trust€securing€a€loan€inÏthe€approximate€amount€of€$250,000€due€Sovran€Bank€and€one€orÏmore€debts€due€the€sellers€which€were€secured€by€liens€on€theÏproperty.€€The€defendant€bank€agreed€to€loan€the€partnershipÏ$650,000.€€The€proceeds€of€the€loan€were€to€be€used€to€pay€theÏdebts€that€were€liens€against€the€property€and€to€renovate€theÏapartments.€€A€deed€of€trust€on€the€apartments€securing€a€loan€inÏthat€amount€was€prepared€and€executed,€but€it€was€not€recorded.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€had€difficulty€obtaining€a€release€orÏsubordination€agreement€from€the€sellers,€who€had€transferred€atÏleast€one€of€the€secured€debts€to€the€Goodlettsville€Bank.€€InÏthe€meantime,€Third€National€Bank€began€making€unsecured€advancesÍso€that€the€partnership€could€commence€renovation€of€theÏapartments.€€The€partnership€ultimately€obtained€from€the€bankÏloans€in€the€amount€of€$350,000,€the€proceeds€of€which€were€usedÏto€improve€the€apartments.€€The€partnership€was€not€able€toÏobtain€a€recordable€subordination€agreement€from€the€priorÏowners.€€When€the€bank€stopped€making€advancements,€the€propertyÏwas€still€encumbered€by€the€Sovran€Bank€deed€of€trust€and€liensÏsecuring€the€former€owners.€€ÌÌà àThe€bank€then€removed€the€page€of€the€executed€deed€ofÏtrust€containing€the€signatures€of€the€parties,€attached€thatÏpage€to€a€deed€of€trust€securing€a€loan€of€$350,000,€and€recordedÏthe€deed€of€trust€at€the€register's€office.€€The€bank€contendsÏthat€the€plaintiff€consented€to€this€action;€the€partnershipÏdenies€that€it€consented.€€ÌÌà àThe€bank€foreclosed€the€recorded€deed€of€trust,€theÏapartments€were€sold€pursuant€to€the€foreclosure,€and€GuyÏAlexander,€Jr.,€personally,€and€the€partnership€filed€bankruptcyÏproceedings.Ó  ÓÌII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€complaint€charges€breach€of€contract,€breach€ofÏ"implied€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,"€"fraudulent€and/orÏnegligent€misrepresentation,"€and€fraud.€€The€plaintiff€allegesÏas€damages:€€additional€costs€of€renovation€caused€by€the€delayÏin€obtaining€even€partial€financing€from€the€defendant;Ïadditional€interest€expense€caused€by€an€increase€in€interestÏrates;€lost€rent€as€a€result€of€the€delay€in€completingÏrenovations;€and€loss€of€its€equity€in€the€apartments€caused€byÏits€inability€to€find€substitute€financing.€€The€plaintiff€doesÏnot€allege€any€damage€to€the€property€itself.€€ÌÌà àIn€defense,€Third€National€Bank€denied€the€violation€ofÏany€duty€or€obligation€due€the€plaintiff€and€affirmatively€pledÏthe€one€year€statute€of€limitations,€the€three€year€statute€ofÏlimitations,€waiver,€estoppel,€and€laches.€€It€also€filed€aÏcounter„claim€against€the€plaintiff€and€the€partners€individuallyÏfor€the€balance€due€on€the€loans€made€to€the€partnership.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€the€suit€is€an€action€forÏbreach€of€contract,€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ô€0ÔÔ€0¼Ô€€Ô€0XÔððÔ€1Ô€28„3„109(a)(3),Ïthe€six€year€statute€of€limitations.€€The€defendant€contends€itÏis€an€action€for€injury€to€property,€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ÏÔ€0ÔððÔ€1Ô€28„3„105,€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations.€Ì€Ìà àWhether€the€cause€of€action€alleged€is€òòex€contractuóó€orÏòòex€delictoóó€is€not€determinative€of€the€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€òòBland€v.€Smithóó,€197€Tenn.€683,€277€S.W.2d€377,€379Ï(1955).€€This€Court€stated€in€òòPera€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€674€S.W.2d€715,Ï719€(Tenn.€1984):€€"It€is€well€settled€in€this€state€that€theÏgravamen€of€an€action,€rather€than€its€designation€as€an€actionÏfor€tort€or€contract,€determines€the€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitations."ÌÌà àThe€issue€before€the€Court€is€determined€by€theÏdecision€in€òòFarabee„Treadwell€Co.€v.€Union€&€Planters'€Bank€&ÏTrust€Co.óó,€135€Tenn.€208,€186€S.W.€92€(1916).€€In€that€case,€theÏcomplaint€alleged€that€the€defendant€bank€agreed€to€loan€$10,000Ïto€the€plaintiff€to€pay€for€the€purchase€of€corn€upon€delivery€toÏthe€bank€of€a€note€secured€by€a€lien€on€the€corn.€€On€the€day€aÍportion€of€the€corn€was€delivered€the€plaintiff€applied€to€theÏdefendant€for€part€of€the€loan.€€The€defendant€admittedlyÏbreached€the€contract€by€refusing€to€loan€the€money,€and€theÏplaintiff€was€forced€to€sell€the€corn€and€other€commodities€onÏthe€open€market€at€a€loss.€€The€plaintiff€sued€the€bank€for€theÏlost€profit€and€also€for€injury€to€the€plaintiff's€credit.€€InÏdetermining€the€damages€to€which€the€plaintiff€was€entitled,€theÏCourt€discussed€whether€the€suit€was€in€contract€or€tort.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThere€has€been€much€discussion€in€theÏcase€as€to€whether€this€was€an€action€uponÏthe€contract€or€in€tort.€€The€Court€of€CivilÏAppeals€took€the€view€that€it€was€a€suit€inÏtort,€and€that€plaintiff€was€accordinglyÏentitled€to€recover€all€damages€it€sustainedÏgrowing€out€of€the€tort,€which€that€courtÏthought€included€every€item€of€damage€setÏout€in€the€declaration€aforesaid.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€are€unable€to€agree€with€theÏconclusion€of€the€Court€of€Civil€AppealsÏthat€this€can€be€treated€as€a€case€in€tort.ÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€93.€€The€Court€held€that€the€complaint€stated€a€cause€ofÏaction€for€breach€of€contract€and€stated€further:€€ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àà àIf€the€plaintiff€is€able€to€establishÏupon€a€trial€of€the€case€that€it€did€haveÍsuch€contract€as€charged,€and€that€the€bankÏbreached€it€under€the€circumstances€detailedÏin€the€declaration,€and€that€plaintiff€didÏnot€have€time€after€the€loan€was€refused€toÏprocure€funds€elsewhere€in€order€to€meet€itsÏobligation,€then€under€such€circumstances€weÏthink€the€bank€is€liable€to€the€plaintiffÏfor€the€special€damage€claimed.€€That€is€toÏsay,€the€bank€is€liable€for€the€lossÏplaintiff€suffered€by€reason€of€theÏnecessity€of€making€a€forced€sale€of€thisÏcorn.€€Such€loss€naturally€and€proximatelyÏfollowed€the€bank's€breach€of€contract€underÏthe€circumstances€alleged,€and€was€a€lossÏnecessarily€within€the€contemplation€of€theÏparties€under€the€peculiar€contract€averred.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€94.ÌÓÓÌÌÓÓà àA€review€of€the€facts€in€the€case€before€the€CourtÏshows€that,€as€in€the€òòFarabee„Treadwellóó€case,€there€has€been€noÏinjury€to€the€property,€but€rather€interference€with€theÏplaintiff's€anticipated€economic€gain€from€the€use€of€the€loanÏproceeds.€€The€substance€of€the€allegations€is€that€the€bankÏrefused€to€make€a€loan€in€the€amount€and€on€the€termsÏcontemplated€by€the€parties.€€All€of€the€alleged€wrongs€committedÏby€the€defendant€were€incidental€to€the€bank's€making€a€$350,000Ïloan€rather€than€a€$650,000€loan.€€Even€the€fabrication€of€theÏdeed€of€trust€which€was€recorded€and€foreclosed,€and€alleged€byÍthe€plaintiff€to€constitute€fraud,€was€an€aspect€of€the€bank'sÏlimiting€the€amount€of€the€loan.€€Also,€the€allegedÏmisrepresentations€related€to€the€bank's€refusal€to€loan€theÏlarger€amount.€€The€damages€alleged€also€indicate€the€gravamen€ofÏthe€suit€to€be€breach€of€contract.€€The€plaintiff€complains€ofÏadditional€costs€of€renovation,€increase€in€the€interest€rate,Ïand€loss€of€rent.€€The€defendant's€counter„claim€for€the€loanÏmade€indicates€the€cause€of€action€is€breach€of€contract€ratherÏthan€a€tort€action€for€damage€to€property.€€Here,€neither€theÏvalue€of€the€property€nor€the€plaintiff's€interest€in€theÏproperty€was€diminished€by€the€failure€to€loan€the€money;€thoseÏvalues€were€not€affected€by€the€alleged€breach€of€contract.€ÏConsequently,€there€was€no€damage€to€property€or€to€an€interestÏin€property.ÌÌà àThe€bank€relies€upon€òòVance€v.€Schulderóó,€547€S.W.2d€927Ï(Tenn.€1977),€in€which€the€Court€held€that€the€applicable€statuteÏof€limitations€was€three€years€in€a€suit€based€on€the€claim€thatÏthe€sale€of€the€plaintiff's€stock€for€less€than€its€full€valueÏwas€induced€by€the€fraudulent€representations€of€the€defendant.€ÏIn€that€case€a€minority€stock€holder€sued€the€directors€of€theÍcompany,€alleging€that€the€directors'€misrepresentationsÏregarding€the€value€of€the€plaintiff's€stock€resulted€in€theÏplaintiff€selling€his€stock€at€less€than€its€fair€value.€€TheÏCourt€found€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[T]he€gravamen€of€the€present€case€isÏfraud€in€the€inducement€of€a€contract,€theÏold€common€law€action€of€deceit.€€PlaintiffÏalleges€damages€resulting€from€face€to€faceÏmisrepresentations€of€material€facts€whichÏinduced€him€to€sell€his€stock€at€a€muchÏlower€figure€than€reasonable.ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€931.€€The€Court€held€the€claim€was€grounded€in€the€tort€ofÏdeceit,€for€which€the€statute€of€limitations€is€three€years.€€InÏthat€case,€the€value€of€the€plaintiff's€interest€in€the€stock€wasÏaffected€by€the€defendant's€deceit.€€That€decision€is€notÏinconsistent€with€the€finding€in€the€instant€case€that€theÏgravamen€of€the€complaint€is€breach€of€contract.ÌÌà àNor€does€the€decision€of€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofÏAppeals€in€òòCumberland€&€Ohio€Co.€v.€First€Am.€Nat'l.€Bankóó,€936ÏF.2d€846€(6th€Cir.€1991),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.€1034€(1992),Ïsupport€the€defendant's€position€in€this€case.€€That€court,Íinterpreting€Tennessee€law,€held€that€the€three€year€statuteÏapplied€to€a€suit€for€damages€incurred€because€the€plaintiff€wasÏforced€by€the€defendant€bank,€pursuant€to€a€financing€agreement,Ïto€sell€property€for€less€than€its€fair€value.€€The€court€foundÏthe€substance€of€the€alleged€wrong,€economic€duress,€wasÏindistinguishable€from€deceit€and€that€the€suit€was€barred€by€theÏthree€year€statute€of€limitations.€€In€that€case€also,€the€valueÏof€the€plaintiff's€interest€in€the€property€sold€was€affected€byÏthe€defendant's€wrongful€act.ÌÌà àBecause€the€Court€finds€the€six€year€statuteÏapplicable,€discussion€of€the€plaintiffs€further€contention€thatÏthe€running€of€the€three€year€statute€was€tolled€is€notÏaddressed.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,€andÏthe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÌÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€against€Third€National€Bank.ÌÌÓÓ€€à àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àLyle€Reid,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,€andÌ€€€€€White,€JJ.