WPC 6sB/} `MƘhȳ EZG X{1"M6cJN6/!U a6KY/5[-O=̈́tT8 Ut /k#ʰa\3M}`!:.9 It\$l@|$~1!(TVe5@r".@:SUXXGޗv >.l@ m~6]ϔvSBZJ>Umi~WBXcBEN 8 B?oEq +U3$nHCܲcUa/DJ| NAn xu>`\l7DBD- 9qTgvD@ݽϹR08!QwOuğ@S@n7{CA͋杼?z|eS  -N,"&qH{ފb#\ %% UN+ 0y UN 0DO  z  ^ w 0 P4NE mb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASA 0Z 0D ABHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   R$      1    _ԀThepartialdismissalgrantedtoWilsonappliedonlytoanyclaimsrelatedtodefamationandpunitivedamages. 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$3 (|3$ !.8Qdd8     ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5t2:i+003|xU- -(|G2$ !.8Qdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Qdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Qdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Qdd8     _  Q8XXdd8  @ AQINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#QA #Ԉ &   AUGUST22,2005Session L XXQ #QXX#ARTHURW.ANDERSON,SR.,etal.v.JAMESW._RAYNER_,etal.XXQ  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.932836T.D.GeorgeH.Brown,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200400485_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember28,_2005_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXThisisthesecondtimethatthiscasehasbeenonappeal.Inthisappeal,weareaskedtodetermine x  ifthetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants.Thedefendantsassert d thatsummaryjudgmentwasappropriatebasedontheclaimsanddefensesraisedattrial,including P resjudicata,lawofthecase,andstatuteoflimitations.Weaffirm.#XXXX##QXXŞ#XXQ <  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  d   #QX #XX.QAlanE._Highers_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, < andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. ( EdwinC._Lenow_,Memphis,TN,forAppellants  DavidJ._Cocke_,JohnS.Wilson,III,Memphis,TN,forAppellees   OPINION #QXX#XXQ ` #QX: #XX.Q  XXX@$$I.Facts&ProceduralHistory 8!   ̀ThisthesecondtimethatthiscasehasbeenbeforetheCourt,andthepertinentfactualand #`" proceduralhistoryissetoutintheCourtsopinion,whichwequote: #L#    ThePlaintiffsversionofthefactsinthiscaseisasfollows. %$!% Inlate1992andearly1993,Plaintiffs/AppellantsArthurW. &"& Anderson,Sr.andJerry_Hollingsworth_Ԁ( Anderson, _Hollingsworth_ '"' or,collectively, Plaintiffs[or Appellants])conceivedofaplanto (#( createamulti-facetedrealestatedevelopmentinOxford,Mississippi. )$) PlaintiffsapproachedDefendantEdwinS._Roberson_Ԁ( _Roberson_) p*%* andPaulAnderson,ArthurAndersonsnephew,inordertoraise \+&+ moneyforthedevelopmentproject. H,',  4-(-  ArthurAndersonindicatedthathecouldparticipateinthe  projectaslongashewouldnotneedtosignindividuallyonalarge  loan.Atthisearlystage,however,Plaintiffsdidnotanticipatesuch  largeloanswouldbenecessary,sincetheyplannedontheCityof t Oxfordtakingownershipofthegolfcourse,andfinancingthe ` purchasethroughCertificateofParticipationBonds.Mr._Roberson_ L  apparentlyapproachedhisimmediatesupervisor,DefendantJohnS. 8  Wilson( Wilson),andDefendantJames_Rayner_Ԁ( _Rayner_),forthe $ t initial$200,000seedmoneyneeded.Plaintiffscontemplatedthat  ` they,alongwithPaulAnderson,wouldcontrol60%oftheproject,  L  whileDefendantswouldcontroltheremaining40%.  8   InApril,1993,DefendantsinformedPlaintiffsthattheyno   longerintendedtopursueOxfordCitybondfinancing,butthatthey   believedprivatefinancingofboththegolfcourseandthefirstphase   oftheresidentialdevelopmenttobethebestchoiceforfundingthe   project._Rayner_ԀallegedlytoldAndersonthatifPlaintiffswouldgive p _Rayner_Ԁanadditional10%oftheproject,Plaintiffswould neverhave \ anythingelsetoworryabout,themoneywouldbethere. H     Itwasatthispointthatthedealingsbetweenthepartiesbegan  p todeteriorate.Andersonagreedtogive_Rayner_Ԁtheadditional10%  \ interestinthedevelopment,andPlaintiffsapparentlybelievedthis H meantthattheywouldshareintheprojectequallywithDefendants. 4 However,shortlythereafter,PaulAndersondroppedoutoftheproject   becausehewasunwillingtosignthelargeloanrequiredunderthe   privatefinancingscheme.Defendantskeptthe10%Andersonhad  given_Rayner_,aswellasPaulAndersons10%share,which  Defendants_Roberson_ԀandWilsonapparentlydividedbetween  themselves.ThisleftDefendantswitha60%stakeintheprojectand l controloverthedevelopmentcorporationtobeformed. X   AtapproximatelythesametimePlaintiffAndersonwas 0"  approachedaboutgivingDefendants10%ofhisshareoftheproject, #l! DefendantWilsonextendedPlaintiffJerry_Hollingsworth_Ԁa$20,000 $X" loan.PlaintiffsallegethatDefendantspromised_Hollingsworth_Ԁa $D # $50,000developersfeeattheclosingofthebankloanforthe %0!$ developmentproject.Basedupontheserepresentations, &"% _Hollingsworth_Ԁapparentlyenteredintoa$40,000settlement '#& agreementtorepaytheBankofBartlettonaseparatematter.Shortly (#' beforetheloanclosedonAugust6,1993,_Roberson_Ԁtold )$(  _Hollingsworth_Ԁthatthe$20,000loanandtheentireBankofBartlett |*%) obligationwouldbetakencareofif_Hollingsworth_Ԁwaivedthe  $50,000developmentfee._Hollingsworth_Ԁagreed.    DefendantGrandOaks,Inc.,( GrandOaksorthe t  Corporation[orcollectivelywith_Rayner_, Appellees])was ` formedinJulyof1993underMississippilaw,andDefendant L  _Roberson_ԀsignedthearticlesofincorporationonAugust6,1993,the 8  samedateastheloanclosing.TheGrandOaksShareholders $ t Agreement,datedJuly1,1993,providedthattheCorporations1,000  ` sharesofstockbedivided:25%,20%and15%toDefendants_Rayner_,  L  Wilsonand_Roberson_,respectively;and20%eachtoPlaintiffs  8  Andersonand_Hollingsworth_. $   Plaintiff_Hollingsworth_Ԁallegesthat,inspiteofDefendants   agreementtotakecareofhisdebttoBankofBartlett,Defendants   laterinformedhimthatthedebtwasstilloutstanding.Ratherthan   defaultontheBankofBartlettagreement,_Hollingsworth_Ԁclaims p Defendantsputhiminapositionof financialduresswhichforced \ himtoenterintoastockpledgeagreement,which,_Hollingsworth_ H believed,wouldallowhimtosellorborrowagainsthisstockinthe 4 newcorporation._Hollingsworth_Ԁclaimsthat,unbeknownsttohim,  p Defendantshadaddedlanguageintheagreementwhichprovidedthat  \ _Hollingsworth_srighttosellorborrowagainsthisstockwas subject H totherestrictionsandby-lawsofthecorporation.Sincethe 4 shareholdersagreementprovidedasixty(60)dayrightoffirstrefusal   onanysaleofcompanystock,_Hollingsworth_Ԁwaseffectively   preventedfromusinghisstocktoraisemoney.   Plaintiffsalsoallegetheyweretoldthatthelawfirm  Defendantshadselectedtoformthenewcorporationanddraft l documentsassociatedwiththeincorporationwasactingonbehalfof X  thecorporation.Theyallegethattheylaterfoundoutthatthefirmin D! questionhadcontractedwiththeDefendants,individually,andthat 0"  thecorporatedocumentsreflectedaninitialstockauthorizationof #l! 10,000shares,whereasPlaintiffsandDefendantshadinitiallyonly $X" agreedtoissuing1,000shares. $D #  PlaintiffsalsoclaimthatDefendantsheldasecretmeetingin &"% Memphis,whichPlaintiff_Hollingsworth_Ԁfoundoutaboutand '#& attended.ThemeetingwasbetweenDefendant_Rayner_Ԁand (#' representativesoftheMarriotCorporation( Marriot),theentity )$( tappedtomanagethehotelproperty.Atthemeeting,Defendant |*%) _Rayner_ԀallegedlytoldMarriotrepresentativesthathehaddecidedto h+&* developandownthehotelpropertyhimself,andthatPlaintiffshadno  financialinterestintheproject.   Afewdaysbeforeoneof_Hollingsworth_snotesto_Rayner_ t becamedue,_Rayner_Ԁallegedlyinformed_Hollingsworth_Ԁthathewould ` notrenewthenote,andthat_Hollingsworth_Ԁwouldhavetopaythe L  noteorforfeithisstockinthecorporation,pursuanttothestock 8  pledgeagreement.Inordertoavoidthelossofhisinterestinthe $ t Corporation,_Hollingsworth_Ԁfoundaninvestorwhowaswillingtolet  ` _Hollingsworth_Ԁborrowagainsthisstock._Hollingsworth_Ԁallegesthat  L  _Rayner_Ԁfoundoutabout_Hollingsworth_splansandcontactedthe  8  investortoadvisehimthat_Hollingsworth_Ԁwassubjecttotherightof $  firstrefusaltermsintheshareholdersagreement._Hollingsworth_   allegesthat_Rayner_Ԁthencontactedhimtoadvisehimthat_Rayner_   alreadyhadajudgmentagainst_Hollingsworth_sstock,whichwas,   apparently,untrue.Givennoalternative,_Hollingsworth_Ԁclaimshewas   forcedtotransferhisstockto_Rayner_ԀonMay6,1994,giving p Defendantsan80%stakeintheGrandOaks,Inc. \  Plaintiffsallegethat,sinceMayof1994,Defendantshave 4 engagedinsuchtacticsas:attemptingtodiluteAndersonsremaining  p stockinthecorporation;attemptingtoprivatelypurchasechoice  \ segmentsoftherealestatedevelopment;assigningcorporatenotesto H themselves,individually;pullingprivateconsumercreditreportson 4 Plaintiffs;andappointingtheirfriendsas independentdirectors   pursuanttotheMississippiIndependentDirectorsStatute.   Ѐ ....   PlaintiffsAndersonand_Hollingsworth_Ԁoriginallyfiledthis l actionastwoseparatecasesinMayof1994.Thetwocaseswere X  consolidatedandsetfortrialinOctoberof1997.Beforetrial, D! Plaintiffs_nonsuited_Ԁthecase,refilingitseveralmonthslater.Plaintiffs 0"  allegedseveralcausesofaction:intentionalinflictionofemotional #l! distress;breachoffiduciaryduty;fraudintheinducement;_tortious_ $X" interferencewithexistingandprospectivebusiness;andconversion. $D #  OnJanuary20,1998,Defendant,JohnS.Wilson,throughhis &"% executor,filedaMotionforPartialDismissalonthebasisthatthe '#&  causeofactionbyPlaintiffsagainstWilsondidnotsurvivehis (#' death.[ #  1      ]ThetrialcourtgrantedthismotiononJuly21,1998.On   January20,1998,Defendants,_Rayner_ԀandGrandOaks,fileda  motiontodismissforlackofinpersonamjurisdiction,andthetrial  courtgrantedthemotionbyorderenteredMay25,2000.Byorder t enteredJune23,2000,thetrialcourtdeniedPlaintiffs_Tenn.R.Civ.P._ ` 59motionandamendeditsorderofdismissalbymakingitafinal L  orderpursuantto_Tenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁ54.02. 8       Andersonv._Roberson_ ,No.W2000-01879-_COA_-R3-CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS827,at*19  ` (Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(footnotesomitted)[hereinafter AndersonI].  L    Duringthetimethiscasewasonappealregarding_Rayner_sandGrandOaksmotionto $  dismiss,_Roberson_ԀandWilsonseparatelyfiledmotionstodismiss,orinthealternative,forsummary   judgmentonalltheremainingclaimsagainstthem.Thecircuitcourtgrantedbothmotionsfor   summaryjudgment.Appellantsfailedtotimelyappealthisjudgment.     Onremand,_Rayner_ԀandGrandOaksjointlyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentalleging, p amongotherclaimsanddefenses,lackofpersonaljurisdiction,collateralestoppel,statuteof \ limitations,andlawofthecase._Rayner_ԀandGrandOaksalsofiledmotionstostriketheaffidavit H ofAndersonandtostrikeportionsoftheaffidavitof_Hollingsworth_.Subsequently,thecircuitcourt 4 enteredanordergranting_Rayner_sandGrandOaksmotiontostriketheaffidavitofAnderson,  p motiontostrikeportionsoftheaffidavitof_Hollingsworth_,andmotionforsummaryjudgment.  \   II.0 @ IssuesPresented 4  AEAppellantshavetimelyfiledanoticeofappealandpresentthefollowingissueforreview:   1.WhetherthecircuitcourterredwhenitgrantedDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment.  Appelleeshavealsopresentedthefollowingissuesforreview: l 2.WhetherAppellantshavewaivedtheirappealofissuesnotbroughtwithinthisappeal; D! 3.WhetherAppellantsclaimfordamagesinconnectionwiththeApril7,1993transactionaretime 0"  barred;and #l! 4.WhetherAppellantsargumentthat_Rayner_Ԁfailedtorespondtimelytotherequestsforadmissions $X" propoundedrequirereversal. $D # Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthecircuitcourt. &"%  )$(   III.0 @ StandardofReview   #I  Acourtmaygrantsummaryjudgment onlywhenthemovingpartydemonstratesthatthere  arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatheorsheisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. t  _Penley_Ԁv.HondaMotorCorp. ,31S.W.3d181,183(Tenn.2000)(citingTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03; ` Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993)). Themovingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthat L  itsmotionsatisfiestheserequirements. _Bain_Ԁv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997)(citing 8  _Downen_Ԁv.AllstateIns.Co.,811S.W.2d523,524(Tenn.1991)).Whenthepartyseekingsummary $ t judgmentmakesaproperlysupportedmotion,theburdenthenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoset  ` forthspecificfacts...establishingthatthereareindeeddisputed,materialfactscreatingagenuine  L  issuethatneedstoberesolvedbythetrieroffact.... Byrd ,847S.W.2dat215.  8    Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewof   theevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,   anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. _Calabro_ ,15S.W.3dat875(citing_Bain_,936S.W.2dat   622). Then,ifthereisadisputeastoanymaterialfactoranydoubtastotheconclusionstobe   drawnfromthatfact,themotionmustbedenied. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat211(citing_Poore_Ԁv. p MagnavoxCo.,666S.W.2d48,49(Tenn.1987);Dooleyv.Everett,805S.W.2d380,383(Tenn.Ct. \ App.1990)).Appellatecourtsreviewatrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovowithno H presumptionofcorrectness. Warrenv.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997)(citing 4 _Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995)).  p    IV.0 @ Discussion  H S    Onappeal,AppellantsassertthatthecircuitcourterredwhenitgrantedDefendants   summaryjudgmentmotiononthegroundsofstatuteoflimitations,resjudicata,andlawofthecase.     ThisCourtfoundinAndersonIthatTennesseecourtscouldnotexercisepersonaljurisdiction  underatraditionaltheoryoverAppelleesfortheiractionsarisingoutofthisdispute.AndersonI,  2001Tenn.App.LEXIS827,at*1718.However,wedidfindthatAppelleesmaybesubjecttothe l jurisdictionofaTennesseecourtinthiscaseundertheconspiracytheoryofjurisdiction.Id.at*20. X  Wenotedthat,afteranevidentiaryhearing,thecircuitcourtcoulddeterminethattherewere no D! facts[to]sustaintheallegationthataconspiracyexists.Id.WhileAppellantsappealedtheorder 0"  granting_Rayner_sandGrandOaksmotiontodismiss,thecircuitcourtgrantedsummaryjudgment #l! to_Roberson_ԀandWilson,findingnoconspiracyasamatteroflawtoexistbetweenthemand_Rayner_ $X" andGrandOaks.Appellantsfailedtotimelyappealtheordergrantingsummaryjudgmentto $D # _Roberson_ԀandWilson.Appelleeshaveassertedthatthecircuitcourtsdecisiongrantingsummary %0!$ judgmentto_Roberson_ԀandWilsonisresjudicataastotheissueofconspiracywithregardsto &"% Appelleesandthat,pursuanttoAndersonI,thecircuitcourtwasproperingrantingsummary '#& judgmentbecauseitlackedpersonaljurisdictionoverAppellees.Thus,ouranalysishingeson (#' whetherthedoctrinesofresjudicataandcollateralestoppelbarAppellantsfromlitigatingtheissue )$( ofconspiracyagainstAppellees. |*%)  h+&*   Asoursupremecourthasnoted,     Thedoctrineofcollateralestoppelorestoppelbyjudgmentis  anextensionoftheprincipleofresjudicata,andisgenerallyheldto t beapplicableonlywhenitaffirmativelyappearsthattheissue ` involvedinthecaseunderconsiderationhasalreadybeenlitigatedin L  apriorsuitbetweenthesameparties,eventhoughbasedupona 8  differentcauseofaction,ifthedeterminationofsuchissueinthe $ t formeractionwasnecessarytothejudgment....  `  Resjudicatabarsasecondsuitbetweenthesamepartiesand  8  theirpriviesonthesamecauseofactionastoallissueswhichwere $  orcouldhavebeenlitigatedintheformersuit.Collateralestoppel   operatestobarasecondsuitbetweenthesamepartiesandtheir   priviesonadifferentcauseofactiononlyastoissueswhichwere   actuallylitigatedanddeterminedintheformersuit.    _\ Q\ _Massengill_Ԁv.Scott ,738S.W.2d629,63132(Tenn.1987)(citationsomitted). Inorderforres \ judicatatoapply,however,thepriorjudgmentmustconcludetherightsofthepartiesonthemerits. H  _Goeke_Ԁv.Woods ,777S.W.2d347,349(Tenn.1989)(citingA.L._Kornman_ԀCo.v.Metro._Govt_Ԁof 4 NashvilleandDavidsonCounty,391S.W.2d633,636(1965)). Onedefendingonthebasisofres  p judicataorcollateralestoppelmustdemonstratethat1)thejudgmentinthepriorcasewasfinaland  \ concludedtherightsofthepartyagainstwhomthedefenseisasserted,and2)bothcasesinvolvethe H sameparties,thesamecauseofaction,oridenticalissues. Richardsonv.Tenn.Bd.ofDentistry , 4 913S.W.2d446,459(Tenn.1995)(citingScalesv.Scales,564S.W.2d667,670(Tenn.Ct.App.   1977)).     Whenthecircuitcourtgranted_Roberson_sandWilsonsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,it  necessarilyfoundasamatteroflawthattherewasnoconspiracybetween_Roberson_,Wilson,and  Appellees.Inadditiontograntingsummaryjudgment,thecircuitcourtenteredafinaljudgmentin l itsorderinfavorofWilsonand_Roberson_.Thisdecisionwasnottimelyappealed.Thus,thisfinal X  judgmentconcludedtherightsonthemeritsbetweenAppellants,_Roberson_,andWilson. SeeByrd , D! 847S.W.2dat210(statingthat amotionforsummaryjudgmentgoesdirectlytothemeritsofthe 0"  litigation).Further,AppellantshaveassertedthesameissuesandcauseofactionagainstAppellees. #l! Thus,doctrinesofresjudicataandcollateralestoppelwillbarAppellantsfromlitigatingwhethera $X" conspiracyexistedbetween_Appeellees_,_Roberson_,andWilsonagainstAppelleesifAppelleeswere $D # inprivitywith_Roberson_ԀandWilson. %0!$   [_A]lleged_Ԁcoconspiratorsareinprivitywithoneanotherforresjudicatapurposes. '#&  _Discon_ԀInc.v.NynexCorp. ,86F.Supp.2d154,166(_W.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000)(citationsomitted); _McIver_ (#' v.Jones ,434S.E.2d504,506(Ga.Ct.App.1993);see Inre_Teletronics_ ,762F,.2d185,192(2d )$( Cir.1984)(concludingthatallegedcoconspiratorwasentitledtoresjudicataeffectofanearlier |*%) decisionforanothercoconspirator); Press_Publg_Ԁv._Matol_ԀBotanical_Int'l_,Ltd. ,37P.3d1121, h+&* 1128(Utah2001)(statingthat finaladjudicationofplaintiffsclaimsbarssubsequentlitigation  concerningthesamesubjectmatteragainstofficersorownersofacloselyheldcorporation,partners,  co-conspirators,agents,alteregosorotherpartieswithsimilarlegalinterests).    Thus,thedoctrinesofresjudicataandcollateralestoppelbarAppellantsfromlitigating ` whether_Roberson_,Wilson,andAppelleesengagedinaconspiracyagainstAppellantsinthiscase. L  Appellees,asamatteroflaw,havenotengagedinaconspiracywith_Roberson_ԀandWilson.Asthis 8  courtstatedinAndersonI,TennesseecourtsdonothavepersonaljurisdictionagainstAppelleesif $ t noconspiracyexists. AndersonI ,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS827,at*19.Underthelawofthecase,  ` TennesseecourtsdonothavepersonaljurisdictionoverAppellees. Memphis_Publg_ԀCo.v.Tenn.  L  PetroleumUndergroundStorageTankBd. ,975S.W.2d303,306(Tenn.1998)(statingthat under  8  thelawofthecasedoctrine,anappellatecourtsdecisiononanissueoflawisbindinginlatertrials $  andappealsofthesamecaseifthefactsonthesecondtrialorappealaresubstantiallythesameas   thefactsinthefirsttrialorappeal(citationsomitted)).Accordingly,thedecisionofthecircuit   courtisaffirmed.Thus,allotherissuesinthiscaseare_pretermitted_.      V.0 @ Conclusion p  u  Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthecircuitcourt.Costsofthisappeal H aretaxedtoAppellants,ArthurW.Anderson,Sr.andJerry_Hollingsworth_,andtheirsurety,for 4 whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXXX ##QXXŕ #XXQ  p    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGE