ÿWPCÜ Ü1¨ÿÍ&‹©X,ELš'Û)aº¤Ó«+_„óâˆØågÅX¼Òƒ«É³–ù¤ ñÏ^øèLåæn8ýÀMoëÚBK×Ûst¡1mìþБ \DYC¶ê|Èýã_h¨.‹7ªõ¡©Éž8Ù¬H¹¯f&lû8KÈ}ÿâXi×BV:ÜþQ;‰/·÷zžž¸”ñp–úéá@ÏÑAŒ5ä%¼M>î6º“£X–2áôZ/åß}%àìh¨? a, ÜaÆf ´Ü=? „%·K²š§Ja¤n/ùûø´è.À-ñÔ¦E< yŠ ÀâëlÐÃdˆú‰gøô¬~ÚÖåC/úžLrÈ€bQ`.±4ICg×e•Ârhåø†?ÑÊ&zÿø¾?èÓ£J÷ãÛ×î€hEn\’ɬ\Ñ–‡©î\§ä–®{';9S½×»ä «_n1ÿªMg»ÎÞ„]'¨å"“¢ì£W- ìš—{ú묭&‹4%I€¡ð†Æ9–Â!:—ÞÏ2¢º­ù³‰Q¬y²©×`¸8b~$®£3eBðn0î›ÊËFÈ…½Ån±¹õÿFÿîj´ 9¬ìYÊEj£È–&Ó²B*«µ¿á}ð´IÐ ûb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;= 1EEÒ 72Ô 1u 72{ 0c­­­*‘@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@bÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑ 0ëÙÙÙÙ BÄÄ 0¤á D3… D-¸ 0Kåå AS0ƃ 0¤I 0Dí A«1˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 »gX-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (× CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ý ƒRŒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ XíKX» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ôÏòX XíKÔÔ_ÔPeroÔ_Ôððs€announced€at€trial€a€compromise€and€dismissal€of€its€claim€against€First€American€National€Bank.€Ð ° ÐAlthough€Lee€appeared€and€testified€at€trial€pursuant€to€a€subpoena,€she€was€not€represented€by€counsel€and€did€notÐ tÄ Ðmount€a€defense.€€Neither€First€American€nor€Lee€is€a€party€to€this€appeal. Ñ e Ñ ‡Ý ƒRŒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ XíKX» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ôÏòX XíKÔòòÔ_ÔDeHartÔ_Ô€v.€First€Fidelity€Bank,€N.A./€South€Jerseyóó,€67€Ô_ÔBankrÔ_Ô.€740,€743„46€(Ô_ÔD.N.J.Ô_Ô€1986);€òòÔ_ÔUNRÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔRohnÔ_Ô,€Inc.,€v.Ð ° ÐSummit€Bankóó,€687€N.E.2d€235€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1997);€€òòÔ_ÔStjernholmÔ_Ô€v.€Life€Ins.€Co.€of€N.€Am.óó,€782€P.2d€810,€811„12€(Colo.Ð tÄ ÐCt.€App.€1989).- ù-(|G2Œ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€²×»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ XíKX» »Ô d(|3É€$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€²×»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3É€$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€²×»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€²×»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ¼²×»» »ÔÑ8€íKXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€ïO ÑÓ=€²×»Ð»dÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡ î¿Æî» ¼²×ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÔ#† ¼²×»î î¿ÆB#ԈР° Ðà@YY$ìàÔ‡ î¿Æî» ¼²×ÔATÔ#† ¼²×»î î¿ÆÍ#Ô€Ô‡ î¿Æî» ¼²×ÔKNOXVILLEÔ#† ¼²×»î î¿Æ#ԈРÖ& Ðà@õõìàSeptember€4,€2002€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ‡ XíKX» ¼²×ÔÌÌò òÔ#† ¼²×»X XíK´#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XíKX» ¼²×ÔÔ‡ ¼²×»X XíKÔPEROððS€STEAK€AND€SPAGHETTI€HOUSE€and€LOUIS€INN€v.Ð æ 6 ÐELIZABETH€JEAN€HINKLE€LEE€and€FIRST€AMERICAN€NATIONALÐ ú J ÐBANK€and€FIRST€TENNESSEE€BANK€NATIONAL€ASSOCIATIONÔ#† XíKX» ¼²×&#Ôòòóóó óÐ  ^ ÐÓûÓÌÌà@ùù ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Eastern€SectionˆÐ úJ  Ðà  àà ` àà@²²ìàCircuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ æ6  Ðà@ú ú ìàNos.€3„541„96€and€3„544„96€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeˆÐ Ò"  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ ÐÌà@Ê Ê ìàNo.€E2001„00254„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€October€24,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_Ô€ˆÐ ‘á ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹ Ðó óÌÌThe€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€refusing€to€applyÐ P  Ðthe€discovery€rule€to€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instrumentsÐ <Œ Ðand€in€granting€the€defendantððs€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€as€to€checks€allegedlyÐ (x Ðconverted€more€than€three€years€before€the€plaintiffs€filed€suit€on€August€29€and€30,€1996.€€€AfterÐ d Ðfully€and€carefully€considering€the€record€and€the€relevant€authorities,€we€conclude€that€the€discoveryÐ P Ðrule€does€not€apply€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€when€the€claim€alleged€is€conversion€of€aÐ ì< Ðnegotiable€instrument.€€This€conclusion€applies€both€to€the€former€statute€of€limitations,€TennesseeÐ Ø( ÐCode€Annotated€section€28„3„105,€€and€the€current€statute€of€limitations,€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Ä Ðsection€47„3„118(g).€€Therefore,€in€the€absence€of€fraudulent€concealment,€a€cause€of€action€forÐ ° Ðconversion€of€a€negotiable€instrument€accrues,€and€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run,€when€theÐ œ ì Ðinstrument€is€negotiated.€€With€respect€to€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€ofÐ ˆ!Ø  Ðfraudulent€concealment,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€record€contains€no€genuine€issue€of€materialÐ t"Ä! Ðfact€precluding€summary€judgment.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmingÐ `#°" Ðthe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant€is€affirmed€on€the€separateÐ L$œ# Ðgrounds€stated€herein.Ð 8%ˆ $ ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Trial€Court€and€Court€of€Appeals€Affirmedó óÐ '`"& ÐÌòòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€E.€Ròòileyóó€Aòòndersonóó,Ð è(8$( ÐòòAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Janice€M.€Holderóó,€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jr.,€JJ,€óójoined.Ð Ô)$%) ÐÌJames€S.€Tipton,€Jr.,€and€W.€Morris€Kizer,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€plaintiffs„appellants,€PeroððsÐ ¬+ü&+ ÐSteak€and€Spaghetti€House€and€Louis€Inn.Ð ˜,è', ÐÐ „-Ô(-ý ÐStephen€G.€Anderson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€defendant„appellee,€First€Tennessee€Bank€NationalÐ ° ÐAssociation.Ð œì ÐÌÌÔ€ ¼²×»X XíKÔÓÓà@ëë'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ `° ÐÔ€ XíKX» ¼²×ÔÓÓà@Ñ Ñ ìàòòò òFactual€and€Procedural€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆ Ø Ðà  àThis€appeal€involves€the€alleged€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments.€€The€plaintiffs,€PeroððsÐ t Ä ÐSteak€and€Spaghetti€House€(ð ðPeroððsðð)€and€Louis€Inn€are€general€partnership€businesses€in€Knoxville.€Ð ` ° ÐBrothers€Arthur,€Al,€and€Gus€Peroulas€were€the€partners€who€owned€Ô_ÔPeroÔ_Ôððs,€and€the€PeroulasÐ L œ  Ðbrothers,€along€with€their€brother„in„law,€Menas€Keramidas,€were€the€partners€who€owned€Louis€Inn.€Ð 8ˆ  ÐThese€men€immigrated€to€the€United€States€in€the€1950s,€became€citizens€in€1956€and€worked€in€allÐ $t  Ðareas€of€the€restaurant€business,€and€in€1960,€they€purchased€Louis€Inn.Ð `  ÐÌà  àThe€partners€hired€Hinkle€&€Hinkle,€a€family€accounting€and€bookkeeping€firm,€to€performÐ è8  Ðall€the€general€accounting,€bookkeeping,€and€tax€preparation€for€Louis€Inn€and€the€later„acquiredÐ Ô$ ÐPeroððs.€€Elmer€Hinkle€operated€the€family€business€with€his€wife,€Anna,€and€eventually€with€hisÐ À Ðdaughter,€Elizabeth€Hinkle€Lee€(ð ðLeeðð).€€Beginning€at€some€point€in€1985,€after€Elmer€Hinkle€diedÐ ¬ü Ðand€his€wife€retired€from€the€business,€Lee€handled€all€of€the€accounting,€bookkeeping,€and€taxÐ ˜è Ðpreparation€work€for€Peroððs€and€Louis€Inn.€Ð „Ô ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€allege€that€between€1988€and€1995,€fifty„four€checks€written€by€Peroððs€andÐ \¬ Ðeighty„six€checks€written€by€Louis€Inn€were€converted€by€Lee€and€the€defendant,€First€TennesseeÐ H˜ ÐBank€National€Association€(ð ðFirst€Tennesseeðð).€€Peroððs€did€not€have€an€account€at€First€Tennessee.€Ð 4„ ÐThe€Peroððs€checks€were€drawn€on€First€American€Bank,€where€Peroððs€did€its€banking.€€Louis€Inn€hadÐ  p Ðan€account€with€First€Tennessee,€and€the€Louis€Inn€checks€were€drawn€on€this€account.€€All€140Ð  \ Ðchecks€were€payable€to€First€Tennessee.€€All€the€checks€were€given€to€Lee€by€the€partners€of€PeroððsÐ øH Ðor€Louis€Inn,€and€she€presented€all€of€them€to€the€First€Tennessee€branch€office€near€the€office€ofÐ ä4 ÐHinkle€&€Hinkle.€€Of€the€140€checks€at€issue,€one€Peroððs€check€and€thirty„seven€Louis€Inn€checksÐ Ð  Ðwere€written€within€three€years€of€August€29€&€30,€1996,€the€dates€on€which€the€complaints€wereÐ ¼  Ðfiled.€€Ð ¨ ø ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€allege€that€all€the€checks€were€intended€to€be€used€to€pay€federal€taxes.€€FirstÐ €"Ð  ÐTennessee€maintained€a€separate,€segregated€account€to€enable€employers€to€pay€federal€taxes,€whichÐ l#¼! Ðwas€called€the€Treasury,€Tax€and€Liability€Account€(ð ðTax€Accountðð).€€Employers,€like€Peroððs€andÐ X$¨" ÐLouis€Inn,€would€deposit€funds€into€this€account,€and€each€branch€office€of€First€Tennessee€wouldÐ D%” # Ðreceive€these€deposits,€set€them€aside€until€the€end€of€the€day,€and€then€deposit€the€funds€into€the€TaxÐ 0&€!$ ÐAccount.€€At€the€end€of€each€day,€First€Tennessee€transmitted€all€the€monies€in€the€Tax€Account€toÐ 'l"% Ðthe€Internal€Revenue€Service€(ð ðIRSðð),€along€with€a€tape€identifying€the€portion€to€be€credited€to€eachÐ (X#& Ðlisted€employer€tax€identification€number.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€the€partners,€Peroððs€andÐ ô(D$' ÐLouis€Inn€adopted€this€method€of€paying€taxes€on€Elmer€Hinkleððs€suggestion€that€it€was€convenientÐ à)0%( Ðand€trustworthy.€€First€Tennessee€did€not€have€a€similar€account€and€procedure€available€for€payingÐ Ì*&) Ðstate€taxes.Ð ¸+'* Їà  àThe€checks€at€issue€in€this€appeal€were€not€processed€in€strict€accordance€with€the€TaxÐ ° ÐAccount€procedure.€€First€Tennessee€occasionally€allowed€Lee€to€cash€the€checks€withoutÐ œì Ðendorsement€and€use€some€or€all€of€the€proceeds€to€purchase€cashierððs€checks€payable€to€the€StateÐ ˆØ Ðof€Tennessee€or€to€the€IRS.€€At€other€times€First€Tennessee€allowed€Lee,€again€without€endorsement,Ð tÄ Ðto€deposit€some€or€all€of€the€funds€from€the€checks€into€the€ð ðHinkle€&€Hinkle€Tax€Account.ðð€€LeeÐ `° Ðoften€would€then€write€checks€on€this€account€to€pay€taxes€owed€by€Peroððs€and€Louis€Inn.€€Lee€alsoÐ L œ Ðwrote€checks€on€this€account€for€her€personal€needs.Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€1991,€Peroððs€was€audited€by€the€IRS.€€As€a€result€of€that€audit,€Peroððs€was€required€to€payÐ  ` Ðapproximately€$39,000€in€back€taxes,€interest,€and€penalties.€€On€or€about€February€3,€1992,€PeroððsÐ ü L  Ðreceived€another€notice€from€the€IRS.€€This€notice€was€sent€to€the€restaurant€located€at€4931Ð è 8  ÐKingston€Pike,€and€it€stated€that€the€IRS€had€not€received€any€tax€deposits€during€the€fourth€quarterÐ Ô$  Ðof€1990.€€The€partners€of€Peroððs€had€written€and€delivered€to€Lee€during€that€quarter€four€checks,Ð À  Ðeach€in€the€amount€of€$9,500,€for€a€total€of€$38,000.€€Before€and€after€1991,€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðreceived€numerous€notices€from€the€IRS,€some€indicating€underpayment€of€payroll€taxes,€othersÐ ˜è  Ðindicating€overpayment,€and€some€indicating€a€refund€due.€€The€plaintiffs€turned€these€notices€overÐ „Ô  Ðto€Lee€and€relied€upon€her€to€handle€them.€€Lee€assured€the€plaintiffs€that€the€notices€were€an€IRSÐ pÀ Ðmistake€and€that€she€would€take€care€of€them.€€On€occasion,€Lee€used€funds€from€the€Hinkle€&Ð \¬ ÐHinkle€Account€to€pay€the€outstanding€tax€deficiencies.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€July€of€1995,€the€plaintiffs€received€an€IRS€levy€and€approximately€fifteen€notices€allegingÐ  p Ða€tax€deficiency.€€The€partners€investigated€by€personally€contacting€the€IRS.€€In€a€March€14,€1996Ð  \ Ðletter,€the€IRS€advised€the€partners€to€contact€their€bank.€€Upon€further€investigation,€the€partnersÐ øH Ðlearned€that€140€checks€payable€to€First€Tennessee€had€not€been€applied€to€the€Tax€Account.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€this€investigation,€on€August€29,€1996,€Ô_ÔPeroÔ_Ôððs€filed€a€complaint€against€Lee,Ð ¼  ÐFirst€Tennessee,€and€First€American€National€Bank.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€The€complaint€alleged€that€First€Tennessee€hadÐ ¨ø Ðengaged€in€€joint€conversion€with€Lee€by€improperly€allowing€her€to€cash€or€deposit€fifty„four€Ô_ÔPeroÔ_ÔððsÐ ”ä Ðchecks€that€were€payable€to€First€Tennessee€and€intended€for€deposit€in€the€Tax€Account.€€On€AugustÐ €Ð Ð30,€1996,€Louis€Inn€filed€a€complaint€that€was€essentially€the€same,€alleging€that€First€Tennessee€hadÐ l¼ Ðengaged€in€joint€conversion€with€Lee€by€improperly€allowing€her€to€cash€or€deposit€eighty„six€LouisÐ X ¨ ÐInn€checks€that€were€payable€to€First€Tennessee€and€intended€for€deposit€in€the€Tax€Account.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€cases€were€consolidated€and€eventually€tried€by€a€jury.€€Although€the€proof€showed€thatÐ #l! ÐFirst€Tennessee€had€allowed€Lee€to€cash€and/or€deposit€140€Ô_ÔPeroÔ_Ôððs€and€Louis€Inn€checks,€FirstÐ $X" ÐTennessee€records€revealed€that€a€substantial€portion€of€the€proceeds€of€the€more€recent€checks€hadÐ ô$D # Ðbeen€used€to€pay€taxes€owed€by€Ô_ÔPeroÔ_Ôððs€and€Louis€Inn.€€First€Tennessee€also€argued€that€it€was€notÐ à%0!$ Ðguilty€of€conversion€because€Lee€had€been€an€agent€of€the€plaintiffs,€who€was€authorized€to€directÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€tellers€to€cash€and/or€deposit€the€disputed€checks.€€The€plaintiffs€responded€that€Lee€only€had€Ð ¸'#& Ðauthority€to€deliver€the€checks€to€First€Tennessee€for€deposit.€€The€issue€of€agency€was€submittedÐ ° Ðto€the€jury.€€Also€submitted€to€the€jury€was€the€question€of€whether€the€claims€were€barred€by€a€three„Ð œì Ðyear€statute€of€limitations.€€First€Tennessee€argued€that€claims€relating€to€checks€allegedly€convertedÐ ˆØ Ðmore€than€three€years€before€the€complaint€was€filed€were€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðplaintiffs€responded€that€the€claims€were€timely€filed€because€the€statute€of€limitations€had€beenÐ `° Ðtolled€by€the€discovery€rule,€or€in€the€alternative,€by€fraudulent€concealment.€€The€jury€returnedÐ L œ Ðverdicts€for€the€plaintiffs;€however,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€which€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðgranted€on€the€basis€that€the€verdicts€as€to€damages€were€inadequate€and€not€consistent€with€theÐ $ t Ðweight€of€the€evidence€at€trial.€€The€trial€court€also€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€to€transfer€theÐ  ` Ðconsolidated€cases€to€another€judge€for€the€second€trial.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€transfer,€First€Tennessee€moved€for€partial€summary€judgment,€again€relying€uponÐ Ô$  Ðthe€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€The€plaintiffs€opposed€the€motion,€€again€arguing€both€that€theÐ À  Ðdiscovery€rule€applied€to€toll€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€in€the€alternative,€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstatute€of€limitations€was€tolled€by€First€Tennesseeððs€fraudulent€concealment.€€According€€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiffs,€because€the€checks€payable€to€First€Tennessee€constituted€ð ðspecial€deposits,ðð€FirstÐ „Ô  ÐTennessee€had€a€fiduciary€duty€which€imposed€upon€First€Tennessee€both€the€duty€to€inquire€of€theÐ pÀ Ðmakers,€Peroððs€and€Louis€Inn,€as€to€how€the€checks€were€to€be€handled,€and€the€duty€to€disclose€toÐ \¬ ÐPeroððs€and€Louis€Inn€all€material€facts.€€The€plaintiffs€argued€that€if€First€Tennessee€had€satisfied€itsÐ H˜ Ðduty€of€inquiry,€it€would€have€discovered€Lee€was€not€acting€in€accordance€with€the€intent€of€PeroððsÐ 4„ Ðand€Louis€Inn.€€The€plaintiffs€further€argued€that€First€Tennessee€is€charged€with€the€knowledge€itÐ  p Ðwould€have€discovered.€€Therefore,€they€contended€that€First€Tennessee€was€guilty€of€fraudulentÐ  \ Ðconcealment€for€failing€to€disclose€to€the€plaintiffs€that€Lee€was€improperly€cashing€and€depositingÐ øH Ðsome€of€the€checks€written€for€tax€purposes.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€and€considering€the€entire€record€from€the€initial€trial,€the€trial€court€grantedÐ ¼  ÐFirst€Tennesseeððs€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment,€finding€both€that€the€discovery€rule€doesÐ ¨ø Ðnot€apply€to€toll€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€and€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€factÐ ”ä Ðas€to€fraudulent€concealment.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€plaintiffs€by€exercise€ofÐ €Ð Ðreasonable€care€and€diligence€could€have€discovered€their€claims€in€February€of€1992,€when€theyÐ l¼ Ðreceived€the€IRS€notice€stating€that€no€taxes€had€been€paid€for€the€fourth€quarter€of€1990.€€In€soÐ X ¨ Ðholding,€the€trial€court€implicitly€found€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€existed€as€to€one€of€theÐ D!” Ðrequired€elements€of€fraudulent€concealment,€i.e.,€that€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€discover€the€claimÐ 0"€  Ðdespite€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€the€plaintiffs€and€First€Tennessee€stipulated€as€to€the€netÐ ô$D # Ðamount€of€the€single€Ô_ÔPeroÔ_Ôððs€check€and€the€thirty„seven€Louis€Inn€checks€cashed€or€deposited€by€LeeÐ à%0!$ Ðwithin€three€years€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.€With€respect€to€the€plaintiffs€and€First€Tennessee,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€trial€judge€certified€its€order€and€final€judgment€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ ¸'#& ÐProcedure€54.02.€€Thereafter,€the€plaintiffs€appealed,€arguing€that€summary€judgment€was€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappropriate€because€the€statute€of€limitations€was€tolled€by€the€discovery€rule€and€by€fraudulentÐ )à$( Ðconcealment.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€a€split€decision,€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€The€Court€ofÐ ° ÐAppeals€unanimously€agreed€that€the€discovery€rule€does€not€apply€to€the€three„year€statute€ofÐ œì Ðlimitations€enacted€by€the€Legislature€in€1995€and€effective€June€1,€1996.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ˆØ Ð47„3„118(g).€€The€majority€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€the€1996€statute€governed€theÐ tÄ Ðplaintiffsðð€claims,€and€as€a€result,€held€that€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€claims€on€checksÐ `° Ðconverted€more€than€three€years€prior€to€the€filing€of€the€complaint€were€time„barred.€€The€majorityÐ L œ Ðalternatively€reasoned€that€even€if€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„3„105,€the€pre„1996€statute,Ð 8 ˆ Ðgoverned€the€plaintiffsðð€claims,€and€even€if€the€discovery€rule€applied€to€toll€the€running€of€thatÐ $ t Ðstatute,€summary€judgment€was€appropriately€granted€in€this€case.€€In€particular,€the€Court€ofÐ  ` ÐAppeals€agreed€with€the€trial€court€that€there€was€no€genuine€issue€of€disputed€fact:€the€plaintiffsÐ ü L  Ðknew€or€reasonably€should€have€known€of€their€claims€on€February€3,€1992,€when€they€received€theÐ è 8  ÐIRS€notice€stating€that€no€taxes€had€been€paid€for€the€fourth€quarter€of€1990.€€The€dissenting€judgeÐ Ô$  Ðwould€have€held€that€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€accrued€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€section€118(g),€andÐ À  Ðas€a€result,€section€28„3„105,€to€which€the€discovery€rule€applied,€€governed€the€plaintiffsðð€claims.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€dissenting€judge€was€of€the€opinion€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€existed€as€to€when€theÐ ˜è  Ðplaintiffs€discovered€or€reasonably€should€have€discovered€their€claims€and€would€have€held€thatÐ „Ô  Ðsummary€judgment€was€not€appropriate.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€granted€the€plaintiffsðð€application€for€permission€to€appeal€and€now€affirm,€on€theÐ H˜ Ðseparate€grounds€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€grantÐ 4„ Ðof€partial€summary€judgment€to€First€Tennessee.Ð  p ÐÌÌà@žž!ìàòòò òStandard€of€Reviewóóó óˆà p àÐ ä4 Ðà  àAn€appellate€court€reviews€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€de€novo€with€no€presumption€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€trial€court's€conclusions€were€correct.€€òòSeeóó€òòMooney€v.€Sneedóó,€30€S.W.3d€304,€306€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð ¼  ÐSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€the€moving€party€demonstrates€that€there€are€noÐ ¨ø Ðgenuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€he€or€she€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€òòóó€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐR.€Civ.€P.€56.04;€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWebber€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,€49€S.W.3d€265,€269€(Tenn.Ð €Ð Ð2001).€€In€reviewing€the€record,€"[c]ourts€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ l¼ Ðnonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor."€Ð X ¨ ÐòòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).€€"If€both€the€facts€and€conclusionsÐ D!” Ðto€be€drawn€therefrom€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion,€then€summaryÐ 0"€  Ðjudgment€is€appropriate."€€òòSeavers€v.€Methodist€Med.€Ctr.€of€Oak€Ridgeóó,€9€S.W.3d€86,€91Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.1999).€€Ð $X" ÐÌà@ff#ìàòòò òDiscovery€Ruleóóó óˆÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€primary€issue€in€this€appeal€is€a€question€of€first€impression:€Does€the€discovery€ruleÐ Ì&"% Ðapply€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€when€the€cause€of€action€alleged€is€conversion€of€a€negotiableÐ ¸'#& Ðinstrument?€€ð ðWhen€determining€whether€to€apply€the€discovery€rule,€this€Court€considers€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðspecific€statutory€language€at€issue€and€balances€the€policies€furthered€by€application€of€theÐ )à$( Ðdiscovery€rule€against€the€legitimate€policies€upon€which€statutes€of€limitations€are€based.ðð€€òòQualityÐ |*Ì%) ÐAuto€Parts€Co.,€Inc.,€v.€Bluff€City€Buick€Co.€Inc.óó,€876€S.W.2d€818,€820€(Tenn.€1994)€(declining€toÐ h+¸&* Ðapply€the€discovery€rule€to€toll€the€six„month€slander€statute€of€limitations).Ð ° ÐÌà  àConsistent€with€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€Co.óó,€we€begin€our€analysis€with€the€language€of€the€twoÐ ˆØ Ðstatutes€at€issue€in€this€appeal.€€Before€1996,€during€the€time€when€many€of€the€checks€allegedly€wereÐ tÄ Ðconverted,€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€provided€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àThe€following€actions€shall€be€commenced€òòwithin€three€(3)€years€from€the€accruingÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€cause€of€action:óó€€.€.€.€(2)€Actions€for€the€detention€or€conversion€of€personalÐ $ t Ðproperty.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28-3-105€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMcConnico€v.€Third€Natððl€Bankóó,€499Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€874,€891€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€1995,€the€General€Assembly€adopted€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Ô$  Ðsection€47-3-118(g).€€This€statute€became€effective€on€June€1,€1996,€and€it€provides:Ð À  ÐÌà8  à(g)€€Unless€governed€by€other€law€regarding€claims€for€indemnity€or€contribution,€anÐ ˜è  Ðaction€(i)€for€the€conversion€of€an€instrument,€for€money€had€and€received,€or€likeÐ „Ô  Ðaction€based€on€conversion,€(ii)€for€breach€of€warranty,€or€(iii)€to€enforce€anÐ pÀ Ðobligation,€duty,€or€right€arising€under€this€chapter€and€not€governed€by€this€sectionÐ \¬ Ðmust€be€commenced€òòwithin€three€(3)€years€after€the€cause€of€action€accrues.óóÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47-3-118€(emphasis€added).€€Although€the€wording€of€these€statutes€is€slightlyÐ  p Ðdifferent,€the€critical€language€is€the€same.€€Clearly,€both€statutes€require€that€an€action€forÐ  \ Ðconversion€of€a€negotiable€instrument€be€commenced€within€three€years€of€the€time€the€cause€ofÐ øH Ðaction€accrues.€€Therefore,€nothing€in€the€language€suggests€that€these€statutes€should€be€interpretedÐ ä4 Ðdifferently€with€respect€to€application€of€the€discovery€rule.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€these€statutes€are€not€different€in€any€other€relevant€respect.€€While€Section€118(g),Ð ¨ø Ðthe€1996€statute,€is€part€of€Tennesseeððs€version€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€(ð ðTUCCðð),Ð ”ä Ðnegotiable€instruments€have€long€been€governed€by€the€TUCC.€€Therefore,€whether€applying€SectionÐ €Ð Ð118(g)€or€Section€28„3„105,€the€considerations€are€the€same€because€the€claim€is€the€same€ð!ðÐ l¼ Ðconversion€of€a€negotiable€instrument.€€In€addition,€the€Comments€to€Section€118(g)€provide€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðsection€ð ðfollows€general€law€in€stating€that€the€period€runs€from€the€time€the€cause€of€actionÐ D!” Ðaccrues.ðð€€Therefore,€general€law€governing€when€a€cause€of€action€accrued€under€section€28„3„105Ð 0"€  Ðalso€governs€when€a€cause€of€action€accrues€under€Section€118(g).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„1„Ð #l! Ð102(1);€òòWakefield€v.€Crawleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€442,€447€(Tenn.€1999)(stating€that€the€Comments€areÐ $X" Ðevidence€of€the€purposes€and€policies€underlying€uniform€provisions).€€Therefore,€the€currentÐ ô$D # Ðstatuteððs€location€in€the€Tennessee€Code€does€not€suggest€that€it€should€be€interpreted€differentlyÐ à%0!$ Ðthan€Section€28„3„105.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€policies€supporting€both€statutes€are€the€same.€€All€statutes€of€limitations€areÐ ¤(ô#' Ðintended€to€ensure€fairness€and€justice.€€Such€statutes€prevent€undue€delay€in€filing€lawsuits€andÐ )à$( Ðthereby€ensure€that€evidence€is€preserved€and€facts€are€not€obscured€by€the€lapse€of€time€or€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefective€memory€or€death€of€a€witness.€€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€Co.€Inc.óó,€876€S.W.2d€at€820.€€€TheseÐ h+¸&* Ðpolicies€apply€regardless€of€the€statuteððs€location€in€the€Code.€€Given€that€the€statutes€are€identicalÐ ° Ðin€all€material€respects,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€discovery€rule€either€applies€to€both,€or€theÐ œì Ðdiscovery€rule€applies€to€neither.€€To€decide€which€proposition€is€appropriate,€it€is€important€toÐ ˆØ Ðconsider€next€the€history€and€purpose€of€the€discovery€rule.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€discovery€rule€was€first€applied€in€Tennessee€almost€thirty€yearsòòóó€ago€in€òòTeeters€v.€Curreyóó,Ð L œ Ð518€S.W.2d€512,€515€(Tenn.€1974),€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€It€is€now€well„established€that,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwhere€applicable,€the€discovery€rule€is€an€equitable€exception€that€tolls€the€running€of€the€statute€ofÐ $ t Ðlimitations€until€the€plaintiff€knows,€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence,€should€knowÐ  ` Ðthat€an€injury€has€been€sustained.€€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€Co.€Incóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€820.€€The€discoveryÐ ü L  Ðrule€does€not,€however,€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€until€the€plaintiff€òòactuallyóó€knows€that€he€or€sheÐ è 8  Ðhas€a€cause€of€action.€€The€plaintiff€is€deemed€to€have€discovered€the€right€of€action€when€theÐ Ô$  Ðplaintiff€becomes€aware€of€facts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€or€she€hasÐ À  Ðsuffered€an€injury€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€wrongful€conduct.€€òòShadrick€v.€Cokeróó,€963€S.W.2dÐ ¬ü  Ð726,€733€(Tenn.€1998);€òòRoe€v.€Jeffersonóó,€875€S.W.2d€653,€657€(Tenn.€1994).€€Were€statutes€ofÐ ˜è  Ðlimitations€strictly€applied,€plaintiffs€would€be€required€to€sue€ð ðto€vindicate€a€non„existent€wrong,Ð „Ô  Ðat€a€time€when€the€injury€is€unknown€and€unknowable.ðð€€òòTeetersóó,€518€S.W.2d€at€515.€€The€discoveryÐ pÀ Ðrule€is€intended€to€prevent€the€inequity€such€a€strict€application€of€the€rule€would€produce.€€òòQualityÐ \¬ ÐAuto€Parts€Co.€Inc.óó,€876€S.W.2d€at€820.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€discovery€rule€applies,€at€least€to€Section€28„3„105,Ð  p Ðwhich€they€claim€was€in€effect€when€their€cause€of€action€accrued.€€The€plaintiffs€rely€upon€a€1995Ð  \ Ðunreported€decision€in€which€the€Court€of€Appeals€employed€the€discovery€rule€to€hold€that€theÐ øH Ðstatute€of€limitations€for€a€claim€of€conversion€of€a€negotiable€instruments€begins€to€run€ð ðwhen€theÐ ä4 Ðplaintiff€knew€or€reasonably€should€have€known€that€a€cause€of€action€existed.ðð€€òòPacific€PropertiesÐ Ð  Ðv.€Home€Federal€Bankóó,€1995€WL€59112,€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(no.€perm.€app.€filed).€€TheÐ ¼  Ðplaintiffs€urge€this€Court€to€adopt€the€holding€of€òòPacific€Propertiesóó,€and€in€particular,€at€least€adoptÐ ¨ø Ðthis€holding€as€to€Section€28„3„105,€the€pre„1996€statute.€€We€decline.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€the€defendant€points€out,€this€Court€is€not€bound€by€unpublished€decisions€of€the€CourtÐ l¼ Ðof€Appeals.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€4.(H)(1).€€While€litigants€generally€may€rely€upon€unpublishedÐ X ¨ Ðopinions€as€persuasive€authority,€the€reasoning€of€òòPacific€Propertiesóó€is€not€persuasive€as€to€theÐ D!” Ðparticular€issue€in€this€appeal.€€In€that€case,€the€intermediate€court€engaged€in€the€following€analysis:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àThe€phrase€ð ðfrom€the€accruing€of€the€cause€of€action,ðð€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„Ð $X" Ð105,€ð ðmeans€from€the€time€when€the€plaintiff€knew€or€reasonably€should€have€knownÐ ô$D # Ðthat€a€cause€of€action€existed.ðð€€òòStone€v.€Hindsóó,€541€S.W.2d€598€at€599€(Tenn.€App.Ð à%0!$ Ð1976).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòPrescott€v.€Adamsóó,€627€S.W.2d€134,€138€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€ð ð[T]heÐ Ì&"% Ðstatute€is€tolled€only€during€the€period€when€the€plaintiff€has€no€knowledge€at€all€thatÐ ¸'#& Ða€wrong€has€occurred,€and,€as€a€reasonable€person€is€not€put€on€inquiry.ðð€€òòHoffmanÐ ¤(ô#' Ðv.€Hospital€Affiliates,€Inc.óó,€652€S.W.2d€341,€344€(Tenn.€1983).Ð)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Court€of€Appeals€clearly€did€not€employ€the€analysis€approved€by€this€Court€for€determiningÐ h+¸&* Ðwhether€or€not€the€discovery€rule€applies€to€a€particular€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€òòQuality€Auto€PartsÐ ° ÐCo.€Inc.óó,€876€S.W.2d€at€818.€€€As€a€result,€the€Court€of€Appeals€relied€exclusively€upon€personalÐ œì Ðinjury€and€medical€malpractice€tort€cases€and€failed€to€consider€the€authority€from€other€jurisdictionsÐ ˆØ Ðrefusing€to€apply€the€discovery€rule€to€actions€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments.€€In€view€ofÐ tÄ Ðthese€omissions,€we€are€unpersuaded€by€the€reasoning€in€òòPacific€Propertiesóó€and€are€convinced€thatÐ `° Ðthe€Court€of€Appeals€reached€the€wrong€result.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAlthough€a€few€courts€have€applied€the€discovery€rule€in€this€context,Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€the€vast€majority€ofÐ $ t Ðcourts€hold€that€in€the€absence€of€fraudulent€concealment€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€asserting€theÐ  ` Ðstatute„of„limitations€defense,€the€discovery€rule€does€not€apply€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€onÐ ü L  Ðan€action€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòÔ_ÔMenichiniÔ_Ô€v.€Grantóó,€995€F.2d€1224,Ð è 8  Ð1230„31€(3rd€Cir.€1993);€òòKuwait€Airways€Corp.€v.€American€Security€Bankóó,€890€F.2d€456,€461„63Ð Ô$  Ð(D.C.€Cir.€1989);€òòÔ_ÔStefanoÔ_Ô€v.€First€Union€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bank€of€Virginiaóó,€981€Ô_ÔF.SuppÔ_Ô.€417,€421€(E.D.€Va.Ð À  Ð1997);€òòHaddadððs€of€Illinois,€Inc.€v.€Credit€Union€1€Credit€Unionóó,€678€N.E.2d€322,€325„26€(Ill.€App.Ð ¬ü  ÐCt.€1997);€òòHusker€News€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔMahaskaÔ_Ô€State€Bankóó,€460€N.W.2d€476,€477„78€(Iowa€1990);Ð ˜è  ÐòòInsurance€Co.€of€North€Am.€v.€Manufacturers€Bank€of€Southfieldóó,€338€N.W.2d€214,€216€(Mich€Ct.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€1983);€òòSmith€v.€Franklin€Custodian€Funds,€Inc.óó,€726€So.2d€144,€148€(Miss.€1998);€òòÔ_ÔYarbroÔ_Ô,€Ltd.Ð pÀ Ðv.€Missoula€Federal€Credit€Unionóó,€50€P.3d.€150,€162„64€(Mont.€2002);€òòGerber€v.€ManufacturersÐ \¬ ÐHanover€Trust€Co.óó,€315€N.Y.S.2d€601,€603€(N.Y.€Civ.€Ct.€1970);€òòPalmer€Mfg.€and€Supply,€Inc.€v.Ð H˜ ÐÔ_ÔBancOhioÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bankóó,€637€N.E.2d€386,€389„91€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔFuscellaroÔ_Ô€v.€Industrial€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_ÔÐ 4„ ÐCorp.óó,€368€A.2d€1227,€1231€(R.I.€1977);€òòWang€v.€Farmers€State€Bank€of€Winneróó,€447€N.W.2d€516,Ð  p Ð518€(S.D.€1989);€òòÔ_ÔLycoÔ_Ô€Acquisition€1984,€L.P.€v.€The€First€Natððl€Bank€ofò ò€ó óAmarilloóó,€860€S.W.2d€117,Ð  \ Ð119€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Ð üL ÐÌà  àThe€majority€view€is€primarily€grounded€upon€two€principles.€€First€is€the€commercialÐ Ô$ Ðpolicies€underlying€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€that€militate€strongly€against€open„ended€liabilityÐ À Ðon€negotiable€instruments.€€As€the€Third€Circuit€explained:Ð ¬ü ÐÌà8  à[T]he€utility€of€negotiable€instruments€lies€in€their€ability€to€be€readily€accepted€byÐ „Ô Ðcreditors€as€payment€for€indebtedness.€€Checks€must€be€transferable.€€Consequently,Ð pÀ Ðð ðin€structuring€the€law€of€checks,€we€.€.€.€seek€to€enhance€the€negotiability€ofÐ \ ¬ Ðcommercial€paper€so€that€it€may€play€its€role€as€a€money€substitute.ðð€€Robert€Hillman,Ð H!˜ Ðet€al.,€òòCommon€Law€and€Equity€Under€the€Uniform€Commerical€Codeóó,€P€14.01[1]Ð 4"„  Ð(1985).€€Negotiability€requires€predictable€and€rapid€collection€through€paymentÐ  #p! Ðchannels.Ð $\"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àClosely€related€to€negotiability€are€commercial€finality€and€certainty.€€ð ðTheÐ ä%4!$ Ðfinality€of€transactions€promoted€by€an€ascertainable€definite€period€of€liability€isÐ Ð& "% Ðessential€to€the€free€negotiability€of€instruments€on€which€commercial€welfare€soÐ ¼' #& Ðheavily€depends.ðð€€òòFuscellaro€v.€Industrial€Natððl€Corp.óó,€368€A.2d€1227,€1231€(1977);Ð ° Ð[statutory€citation€omitted].МìÐ Ð  Ðà@ÀÀ&ìà*€*€*€*€ˆÐ ˆØ Ðà8  àThe€Code€drafters€sought€quick€and€inexpensive€resolution€of€commercial€disputes.€Ð tÄ ÐThis€overarching€goal€is€particularly€important€with€negotiable€instruments€where€theÐ `° Ðexigencies€of€commerce€require€inexpensive,€quick,€and€reliable€transfer€of€funds.€Ð L œ ÐWhen€the€only€legally€significant€temporal€events€are€the€time€of€injury€and€the€timeÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€filing,€the€issue€whether€the€statute€of€limitations€bars€an€action€becomes€aÐ $ t Ðrelatively€simple€determination€capable€of€resolution€on€the€basis€of€judicialÐ  ` Ðpleadings.€€€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMenichinióó,€995€F.2d€at€1230„31;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHaddadððs€of€Illinois,€Inc.óó,€678€N.E.2d€at€326€(ð ðThe€use€ofÐ Ô$  Ðnegotiable€instruments€was€intended€to€facilitate€the€rapid€flow€of€commerce.€€This€policy€is€bestÐ À  Ðserved€by€finding€the€accrual€of€a€cause€of€action€for€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments€occursÐ ¬ü  Ðwhen€the€instrument€is€negotiated.ðð);€òòHusker€News€Co.óó,€460€N.W.2d€at€479€(ð ðStrict€application€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€limitation€period,€while€predictably€harsh€in€some€cases,€best€serves€the€twin€goals€of€swiftÐ „Ô  Ðresolution€of€controversies€and€ððcertainty€of€liabilityðð€advanced€by€the€[Code].ðð).Ð pÀ Ѐ€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àThe€second€reason€often€cited€by€courts€adopting€the€majority€view€is€that€a€claim€forÐ H˜ Ðconversion€of€negotiable€instruments€is€unlike€other€claims€to€which€the€discovery€rule€has€beenÐ 4„ Ðapplied.€€For€example,€the€discovery€rule€generally€has€been€applied€where€the€actual€injury€does€notÐ  p Ðmanifest€itself€until€years€after€the€tortious€conduct€occurred€and€long€after€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ  \ Ðexpired.€€òòQualify€Auto€Parts€Co.€Inc.óó,€876€S.W.2d€at€822.€€In€contrast,€the€tort€of€conversion€isÐ øH Ðcomplete€and€the€injury€occurs€at€the€moment€the€Ô_ÔtortfeasorÔ_Ô€appropriates€the€plaintiffððs€property€toÐ ä4 Ðhis€or€her€own€use€or€benefit€by€exercising€dominion€over€it€in€violation€of€the€true€ownerððs€right.€Ð Ð  ÐòòSeeóó€òòBarger€v.€Webbóó,€391€S.W.2d€664,€665€(Tenn.€1965);€òòGeneral€Electric€Credit€Corp.€of€TennesseeÐ ¼  Ðv.€Kelly€&€Dearing€Aviationóó,€765€S.W.2d€750,€753€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€When€the€propertyÐ ¨ø Ðconverted€is€a€negotiable€instrument,€the€damage€is€done,€and€the€tort€is€complete€when€theÐ ”ä Ðinstrument€is€negotiated,€regardless€of€the€plaintiffððs€ignorance€of€the€conversion.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð €Ð ÐòòMenichinióó,€995€F.2d€at€1231„31;€òòKuwait€Airways€Corp.óó,€890€F.2d€at€462;€òòHaddadððs€of€Illinois,€Inc.óó,Ð l¼ Ð678€N.E.2d€at€326;€òòYarbro,€Ltd.óó,€50€P.3d€at€163.€€Moreover,€the€law€of€conversion€presumes€thatÐ X ¨ Ðproperty€owners€know€what€their€assets€are€and€where€they€are€located.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòFuscellaroóó,€368Ð D!” ÐA.2d€at€1231.€€The€law€therefore€presumes€that€the€plaintiff€is€not€ignorant€of€the€conversion.€€UnlikeÐ 0"€  Ðother€situations€in€which€the€discovery€rule€has€been€applied,€persons€alleging€conversion,€andÐ #l! Ðparticularly€conversion€of€a€negotiable€instrument,€generally€should€be€able€to€easily€and€quicklyÐ $X" Ðdetect€the€loss€and€take€appropriate€action.€€Having€considered€the€authority,€we€agree€with€the€IowaÐ ô$D # ÐSupreme€Courtððs€assessment:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àAs€tempting€a€choice€as€that€may€be€in€an€individual€case€[applying€the€discoveryÐ ¸'#& Ðrule],€we€think€the€public€would€be€poorly€served€by€a€rule€that€effectively€shifts€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðresponsibility€for€careful€bookkeeping€away€from€those€in€the€best€position€toÐ )à$( Ðmonitor€accounts€and€employees.€€Strict€application€of€the€limitations€period,€whileÐ |*Ì%) Ðpredictably€harsh€in€some€cases,€best€serves€the€twin€goals€of€swift€resolution€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðcontroversies€and€ð ðcertainty€of€liabilityðð€advanced€by€the€[Uniform€CommercialÐ ° ÐCode].МìÐ Ð  ÐÌòòHusker€News€Co.óó,€460€N.W.2d€at€479;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMenichinióó,€995€F.2d€at€1231„31;€òòKuwait€AirwaysÐ tÄ ÐCorp.óó,€890€F.2d€at€462;òòóó€òòHaddadððs€of€Illinois,€Inc.óó,€678€N.E.2d€at€326;€òòÔ_ÔYabroÔ_Ô,€Ltd.óó,€50€P.3d€at€264;Ð `° ÐòòPalmer€Mfg.€&€Supply,€Inc.óó,€637€N.E.2d€at€390„91;€€òòFuscellaroóó,€368€A.2d€at€1231.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àNot€applying€the€discovery€rule€may€very€well€be€harsh€in€certain€cases,€but€we€are€persuadedÐ $ t Ðby€the€reasoning€of€the€majority€view.€€Negotiable€instruments€are€intended€to€facilitate€the€rapidÐ  ` Ðflow€of€commerce€by€providing€certainty€and€finality€in€commercial€transactions.€€These€policies€areÐ ü L  Ðbest€served€by€refusing€to€apply€the€discovery€rule€and€by€finding€that€the€cause€of€action€forÐ è 8  Ðconversion€of€negotiable€instruments€accrues€when€the€instrument€is€negotiated.€€Of€course,€adoptionÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€majority€rule€also€fosters€uniformity,€which€is€a€fundamental€objective€of€the€UniformÐ À  ÐCommercial€Code€and€the€TUCC.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47-1-102(2)(c)(stating€that€one€objectiveÐ ¬ü  Ðis€ð ðto€make€uniform€the€law€among€the€various€jurisdictionsðð).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€nature€of€the€tort€of€conversion€militates€against€application€of€the€discoveryÐ pÀ Ðrule.€€Conversion€is€complete€and€the€damage€to€the€plaintiff€occurs€at€the€moment€an€instrument€isÐ \¬ Ðnegotiated.€€Both€Section€28„3„105€and€Section€118(g)€afford€a€plaintiff€three€years€from€the€timeÐ H˜ Ðthe€instrument€is€negotiated€to€discover€the€claim€and€file€suit.€€Absent€fraudulent€concealment,€threeÐ 4„ Ðyears€should€be€more€than€ample€time€for€a€plaintiff€to€discover€a€conversion€claim.€€Extending€theÐ  p Ðstatute€by€application€of€the€discovery€rule€would€place€defendants€in€the€untenable€position€ofÐ  \ Ðhaving€to€defend€against€stale€claims.€€òòFuscellaroóó,€368€A.2d€at€1231.€€This€case€presents€an€excellentÐ øH Ðexample€of€the€difficulties€that€arise€when€the€discovery€rule€is€applied€in€this€context.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðplaintiffsðð€complaint€was€filed€approximately€eight€years€after€the€first€checks€were€allegedlyÐ Ð  Ðconverted.€€Memories€had€dimmed€and€records€had€been€lost€or€destroyed€in€the€ordinary€course€ofÐ ¼  Ðbusiness.€€Records€were€not€available€for€any€transactions€occurring€prior€to€February1990,€so€FirstÐ ¨ø ÐTennessee€was€unable€to€offer€proof€that€the€plaintiffs€had€received€the€benefit€of€some€of€theÐ ”ä Ðproceeds€from€the€pre„1990€checks.€€First€Tennessee€was€able€to€offer€such€proof€as€to€the€moreÐ €Ð Ðrecent€checks€allegedly€converted.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àFor€all€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€discovery€rule€does€not€apply€to€toll€the€statute€ofÐ D!” Ðlimitations€for€claims€of€conversion€of€negotiable€instruments.€€In€the€absence€of€fraudulentÐ 0"€  Ðconcealment,€such€claims€accrue€and€the€statute€begins€to€run€when€the€instrument€is€negotiated.€Ð #l! ÐThis€conclusion€applies€to€the€former€statute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„3„105,€as€wellÐ $X" Ðas€the€current€statute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„3„118(g).€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtððsÐ ô$D # Ðjudgment€granting€First€Tennessee€partial€summary€judgment€was€appropriate€unless€First€TennesseeÐ à%0!$ Ðengaged€in€fraudulent€concealment€which€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌà@ÁÁìàò òòòFraudulent€Concealmentó óóóˆÐ )à$( Ðà  àIn€òòShadrick€v.€Ô_ÔCokerÔ_Ôóó,€963€S.W.2d€726€(Tenn.€1998),€this€Court€explained€that€to€establishÐ |*Ì%) Ðfraudulent€concealment,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€the€following:€(1)€that€the€defendant€took€affirmativeÐ h+¸&* ÐÑïO Ñâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  Ñaction€to€conceal€the€cause€of€action€or€remained€silent€and€failed€to€disclose€material€facts€despiteÐ e Ða€duty€to€do€so;€(2)€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€have€discovered€the€cause€of€action€despite€exercisingÐ Qì Ðreasonable€care€and€diligence;€(3)€that€the€defendant€had€knowledge€of€the€facts€giving€rise€to€theÐ =Ø Ðcause€of€action;€and€(4)€that€the€defendant€concealed€material€facts€from€the€plaintiff€by€withholdingÐ )Ä Ðinformation€or€making€use€of€some€device€to€mislead€the€plaintiff,€or€by€failing€to€discloseÐ ° Ðinformation€when€he€or€she€had€a€duty€to€do€so.€€òòId.óó€at€735„36.Ð  œ ÐÌà  àAs€previously€stated,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€checks€were€ð ðspecial€depositsðð€thatÐ Ù t Ðgave€rise€to€a€fiduciary€duty€between€the€plaintiffs€and€First€Tennessee.€Nonetheless,€the€trial€courtÐ Å ` Ðfound€that€by€exercising€reasonable€care€and€diligence,€the€plaintiffs€should€have€discovered€theÐ ± L  Ðcause€of€action€no€later€than€February€3,€1992.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ  8  Ðfailed€to€establish€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€the€second€required€element€of€fraudulentÐ ‰$  Ðconcealment.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€stating€simply€that,€ð ðthe€plaintiffs€have€neither€pledÐ u  Ðnor€offered€evidence€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€of€fraudulent€concealment.ðð€€Having€reviewedÐ aü  Ðthe€entire€record€of€the€prior€trial€upon€which€the€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€was€based,€weÐ Mè  Ðagree€with€the€lower€courts€that€the€plaintiffs€have€failed€to€establish€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÐ 9Ô  Ðas€to€fraudulent€concealment.€€Even€assuming€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€the€otherÐ %À Ðrequired€elements,€our€review€of€the€voluminous€record€reveals€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€factÐ ¬ Ðexists€as€to€First€Tennessee€having€ð ðhad€knowledge€of€the€facts€giving€rise€to€the€cause€of€action.ðð€Ð ý˜ ÐThe€plaintiffsðð€assertion€that,€for€purposes€of€fraudulent€concealment,€First€Tennessee€should€beÐ é„ Ðcharged€with€such€knowledge€because€it€had€a€duty€to€inquire€as€to€the€makerððs€intent€with€respectÐ Õp Ðto€the€special€deposits€is€without€merit.€€Fraudulent€concealment€requires€proof€of€actual€knowledge.€Ð Á\ ÐòòSeeóó€òò€Ray€v.€Ô_ÔScheibertÔ_Ôóó,€484€S.W.2d€63,€72€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.)€(cert.€denied€1972)€(cited€with€approvalÐ ­H ÐòòBenton€v.€Snyderóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€414€(Tenn.€1992);€òòÔ_ÔWhaleyÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCatlettÔ_Ôóó,€103€Tenn.€347,€356,€53Ð ™4 ÐÔ_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€131,€134€(1899)€(ð ðCertainly,€we€would€not€be€justified€in€assuming€fraud€in€order€to€preventÐ …  Ðthe€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.ðð).€€This€record€contains€no€proof€indicating€that€FirstÐ q  ÐTennessee€had€actual€knowledge€that€Lee€was€mishandling€the€plaintiffsðð€checks.€€Instead,€the€factsÐ ]ø Ðindicate€that€First€Tennessee€was€negligent€in€following€its€own€procedures,€and€as€a€result,€lackedÐ Iä Ðknowledge€of€the€facts€giving€rise€to€the€cause€of€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔWhaleyÔ_Ôóó,€103€Tenn.€at€356,€53€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_ÔÐ 5Ð Ðat€134€(ð ðThe€averment€that€the€failure€to€disclose€the€breach€of€duty€was€careless€and€negligentÐ !¼ Ðimplies€a€lack€of€knowledge€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€rather€than€otherwise.ðð).€€Because€there€isÐ  ¨ Ðno€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€one€of€the€required€elements€of€€fraudulent€concealment,Ð ù ” Ðsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€First€Tennessee€was€appropriately€granted.€€òòSeeóó€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,Ð å!€  Ð952€S.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1997)€(affirming€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€where€the€defendantÐ Ñ"l! Ðnegated€an€essential€element€of€the€plaintiffððs€claim).Ð ½#X" ÐÌÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionóóó óˆÐ &"% Ðà  àAfter€fully€and€carefully€considering€the€record€and€the€relevant€authorities,€we€conclude€thatÐ m'#& Ðthe€discovery€rule€does€not€apply€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€when€the€claim€alleged€isÐ Y(ô#' Ðconversion€of€a€negotiable€instrument.€€This€conclusion€applies€both€to€the€former€statute€ofÐ E)à$( Ðlimitations,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„3„105,€€and€to€the€current€statute€of€limitations,Ð 1*Ì%) ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„3„118(g).€€Therefore,€in€the€absence€of€fraudulentÐ +¸&* Ðconcealment,€a€cause€of€action€for€conversion€of€a€negotiable€instrument€accrues,€and€the€statute€ofÐ  ,¤'+ Ðlimitations€begins€to€run,€when€the€instrument€is€negotiated.€€Because€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÐ e Ðmaterial€fact€as€to€a€required€element€of€fraudulent€concealment,€summary€judgment€wasÐ Qì Ðappropriate.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÐ =Ø Ðgranting€partial€summary€judgment€to€First€Tennessee€is€affirmed€on€the€separate€grounds€statedÐ )Ä Ðherein.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€any€further€necessary€proceedings.€€Costs€of€thisÐ ° Ðappeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs€Peroððs€Steak€and€Spaghetti€House€and€Louis€Inn,€for€whichÐ  œ Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð í ˆ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð aü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Chief€JusticeóóÐ Mè  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ