WPC 9jxibuɣ/dPMuqT Z+lWZR+K63.*jx` `@E ` ttx$ ( tߛ@tt)ATJACKSONAPRILWALLACE,VICKIEGWIN,  ( L ETAL., 0      8   ( "    0      8   ( PlaintiffsAppellants,  ( 2    0      8   (  0      8   (ShelbyCircuit  0      8   (v.  0      8   (Hon.JamesM.Tharpe, &    0      8   (Judge  0      8   (NATIONALBANKOFCOMMERCE,  (No.02S019509CV00074   ETAL., 0      8   ( ~   0      8   ( DefendantsAppellees.  ( * tXX#?t##XX? #XXXX@xx! ORDERONPETITIONTOREHEAR  l   0 ThepetitiontorehearfiledbytheplaintiffsappellantsinsiststhattheCourtshouldhaveremandedthiscasetothetrialcourtfortrialratherthandismissthecaseonsummaryjudgment.  0 Thepetitionersassertthatattrialtheycanprovethedefendantsdidnotactingoodfaithanddealfairly,eventhoughperformancebyeachdefendantbankwas,asheldbytheCourt,withinthereasonableexpectationsofthepartiestothecontracts.ThepetitionerstakeexceptiontothisCourt'sconclusionthatthe"plaintiffsdonotcontendϜthattherearedisputedissuesofmaterialfact"andsuggesttheCourtwas"ledastray"becausethecasewasbeforetheG   G   G   G   G   G   G    Courtonmotionsforsummaryjudgment.Thepetitioners 7-7 G   G   G   G   G   G   G   G   G   G   G   G   assertthatwithadditionaldiscoverytheycan"indeedgenerateaRecordtosubstantiatealltheirclaims."Thoseclaims,accordingtothepetition,includeclaimsthatthebanks"intentionally"increasedthenumberofchecksonwhichchargescouldbemadeand"doubledNFScharges."  0   0 ThepetitionersdidnotappealfromthefirstdecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdismissingfiveallegedclaimsbecausetheydidnotstateacauseofaction.BoththeCourtofAppealsandthisCourtputthebestfacepossibleontheremainingclaimmadeintheoriginalcomplaint   #  1      ׀andfoundthatitstatedacauseofactionfor d breachofgoodfaithintheperformanceofacontract.Inajointmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthissurvivingclaim,thedefendantsassertedthatwhenacustomer,pursuanttotheagreementwiththebank,isnotifiedofanincreaseintheservicechargesbeforeitbecomeseffective,thereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhethertheincreasedfeesarewithinthecustomersreasonableexpectations.Thedefendants'statementoftheissuepresentedas"theamount"oftheNSFchargeisconfirmedbythepetitioners'responsetothemotionforsummaryjudgment.Thepetitionersspecificallystatethatthecauseofactionis forthebanksbreachofitsimpliedcovenantofgoodfaithinsettingtheamountofitsNSFcharge." @2 (0   0 Themotionforsummaryjudgmentfiledbythebanksisbasedonaffidavitsshowingthatthepetitionersknewtheamountoftheexistingservicechargeswhentheyopenedtheiraccountsandthatthepetitionersreceivedpriornoticeofanychangeinthosecharges.HavingestablishedfactsshowingthatthedefendantsactedinconformancewiththeϜtermsofthecontracts,theburdenshiftedtothepetitionerstoeithercountertheevidencepresentedordemonstratethatfactsotherthantheamountsoftheservicechargessupporttheirclaimthatthedefendantsbreachedtheirdutyofgoodfaithintheperformanceofthecontracts.Thepetitionersmistakenlyassertthattheallegationsintheircomplaintmustbetakenastrueinsupportoftheirpositiononmotionforsummaryjudgment.Thisisnotanaccuratestatementofthelaw.8 80 ! !Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthen  7-0 demonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustsetforthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial."Ifhedoesnotsorespond,summaryjudgment...shallbeenteredagainsthim." 0 h0 h Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.1993);seealso @  Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.05.TheX[XXX[petitionerspresentedno   evidenceinsupportof#X[XXX[#X[XXX[Ԁtheclaimnowmadethatthebanks  intentionallyincreasedthenumberofchecksonwhichchargescouldbemadeordoubledNSFcharges.  0 Thepetitioners'assertionthroughoutthiscasehasbeen,asstatedintheirbrieffiledinthetrialcourt,thatthebanksbreachedtheir"impliedcovenantofgoodfaithinsettingtheamountofitsNSFcharge."Thepetitionersessentiallyarenowcontendingthattheycanprovethebanksareguiltyof"oppressive"and"unconscionable"actsforwhichtheyareentitledtorecover.Thesubstanceoftheirpetitiontorehearisthattheycanprovesomecauseofactionotherthanbreachofcontract.NootherclaimotherthanbreachofcontractisproperlybeforetheCourt.#X[XXX[]#ԛ `3@),   0 TheCourtreaffirmsthedecisionthattherecord  7-0 beforetheCourt,whichisallthatcanbeconsidered,doesnotsupporttheonlycauseofactionasserted,thatthebanksbreachedthecontractsbetweenthebanksandtheircustomers.  0 Thepetitiontorehearisdenied.  0 Thecostsaretaxedtotheplaintiffsappellants.  0      8   ____________________________  0      8   Reid,J.Concur:Birch,C.J.,Drowota,,and񛀜Anderson,̛andWhite,񛀜JJ.White,J.Notparticipating.