WPC{B `vCC !^궎ZLa` u5ӍBU~!qf'dG&XrE DAxO%&ġॲXc!J<֯Yj!.>nR\ep^_`R'0FU 9.[$G|@`?1n7EV|?7R[.&5 N`T-})Z?J!Qza%i58oȔx_19v A\[G^a!j Ý΋n(iHi3sMQMX*ousdH.yE=[Ofp &UoW"P%{Gɮ hZ W~'-x7T49oڦ4pX妱+m="Ob Zn-<(WQ OmˈK8^[ M>[ˣd %x^ ~ 0UNw`4dx z  m #  Y 0DqN 0U 0 E 0) 0 0 0W 0  0 0^ 0 0 0 0H 0 0 0= 0 0m 0 0 0 0:! 0! 0"b&# 0.# 0# 0X$ 0$ 0% 0R& 0>' 0N' 0F( 0() 0 * 0* 0+ 0, 0j- 02<. 0n. 0:j/ 0Y/ 0_/ 0 \0 0f1 02 B*4 D/5 0G5 D/M7 0|7 06J8 08 0:9 0^9 0< : 1e\:U6: 0:U>;U* < < BJ< 1ug< 0< D3= D-= 0K= 72+> AS]>> 0v? 0D@ A^@^@r A"3 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulart2:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 5e,,,,0  RK$      1    _Martin_Grusin_sinvolvementinthislitigationstemmedfromhisstatusasanattorneyfor,andformerofficer  of,theBank.Wifesclaimagainst_Grusin_Ԁwaseventuallydismissedwithprejudice.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,    RK$      2    _ԀAfterthetrialcourthadgrantedalloftheDefendantsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,theDaughters  voluntarilydismissedtheirclaims.*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  - -(,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7G(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dF)1dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  F)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%& 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New(|G2K$ !.8dd8         0  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|3m$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  Wi)^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3m$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK GRUSINGoldin COA P.J. W.S.HighersHellenRobinetteD.O.B.PeetemovantsDiLeonardoWinestoneChristenberryTiptonEadieGoodloe S.W.Sartain !.8dd8     _  8Q XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ &   August22,2005Session L XQ X #XXQ #VIRGINIASTARRSEGALv.UNITEDAMERICANBANK,DAVID J CHARLESSEGAL,MARTINGRUSIN,andRHONDADILEONARDOXQ X   ^ @@ AnAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  ^ @@No.1084132ArnoldB.Goldin,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200402347_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember28,_2005_   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisisanactionforconversioninvolvingtwoexspouses.Thewifewasthelonesignatoryontwo  trustaccountsfortheirdaughters.Withoutauthorizationfromthewife,thedefendantbank x transferredallofthefundsinbothtrustaccountstothehusbandsaccount.Thewifethenfiledthis d lawsuitforconversion,fraudandbreachoffiduciarydutyagainstthebank,thebankemployeewho P transferredthefunds,andthehusband.Thedefendantsfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment.As < partoftheplaintiffwifesresponse,sheadmittedthatsheoriginallyputthemoneyintothetrust (x accountsinordertodefraudcreditorsduringtheirdivorce.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummary d judgmenttothedefendants,basedinpartonthedoctrineofuncleanhands.Theplaintiffwife P appeals.Weaffirm,findingthatthetrialcourtproperlyappliedthedoctrineofuncleanhands. <   Tenn.R.App.P.3Appeal;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisaffirmed     #XQ #XQ X.HollyM.Kirby,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined.  EdM.Hurley,Memphis,Tennessee,forAppellantVirginiaStarrSegal. `!  TimWadeHellen,Memphis,Tennessee,andGeorgiaA.Robinette,Memphis,Tennessee,for 8#" AppelleesUnitedAmericanBankandRhondaDiLeonardo. $$t# JamesW.Surprise,Memphis,Tennessee,forAppelleeDavidCharlesSegal. %L!%   OPINION #XXQ #XQ X '$#' #XXQ j #XQ X    TheactionsgivingrisetothislitigationtookplaceduringthedivorceofPlaintiff#XXQ #XQ X/Appellant )$) VirginiaStarrSegal( Wife)andDefendant/Appellee#XXQ w #XQ XԀDavidSegal( Husband). x OnSeptember19, *%* 1990,WifeopenedtwotrustaccountsatDefendant/AppelleeUnitedAmericanBank( Bank)for +&+ HusbandandWifestwodaughters,LisaEllenSegal(D.O.B.6/5/75)andShellySegal(D.O.B. p,', 3/27/79).#XXQ #XQ XThesignaturecardsfortheaccountsdesignatedShellyandLisaSegalastherespective \-(-  Ownersofeachaccount,anddesignatedWifeasthechildrens Guardianandasa Joint  Owner/AdditionalAuthorizedSignatory.Wifewastheonlyauthorizedsignatoryonbothaccounts.  Onthedaysheopenedthem,Wifedeposited$5,000intoeachaccount.    InJanuary1996,whileinthethroesofherdivorcefromHusband,Wifetookadvanceson ` creditcardsinthejointnamesofHusbandandWife.Theseadvancestotaledsome$28,000.Wife L  wouldlaterexplainthatthe$28,000advanceswerenecessaryforherlivingexpensesduringthe 8  divorce.OnJanuary29,1996,Plaintiffdepositedthe$28,000,minus$500incash,intoShelly $ t SegalstrustaccountattheBank.Afterthedeposit,ShellySegalstrustaccountcontained  ` $34,858.91,andLisaSegalstrustaccountcontained$9,285.40.  L    OnFebruary2,1996,HusbandopenedtwonewcustodialaccountsattheBankinthenames $  ofShellyR.Segal,Minor,andLisaEllenSegal,Minor.Husbandwaslistedastheguardianonboth   accounts.Thatsameday,HusbandapproachedDefendant/AppelleeRhondaDiLeonardo,aBank   employee,andrequestedthatshetransferthe$34,858.91inthetrustaccountinthenameofShelly   SegalandWife,aswellasthe$9,285.40inthetrustaccountinthenameofLisaSegalandWife,to   thenewaccountsthatHusbandhadsetupforShellyandLisaSegal.Thiswasdonewithoutthe p knowledgeorconsentofWife.WithoutnotifyingWifeoracquiringherauthorizationforthe \ transfer,Ms.DiLeonardotransferredthefunds.Husbandthenusedthefundstorepaythedebtto H thecreditcardcompanycreatedwhenWifedrewthe$28,000advanceonthecouplescreditcard. 4   OnOctober24,1996,PlaintifffiledalawsuitintheShelbyCountyChanceryCourtagainst  \ Husband,theBank,MartinGrusin,  #  1      ׀andBankemployeeRhondaDiLeonardo.Thecomplaint H allegedthatthefundswerewithdrawnasaresultofaconspiracybetweenMs.DiLeonardoand 4 Husband.Itallegedfraud,conversion,andbreachoffiduciaryduty.Wifesoughtcompensatory   damagesintheamountof$44,144.31,representingtheamountsallegedlyconvertedfromher   accounts,and$100,000forbreachoffiduciaryduty,outrageousconduct,andextremeemotionaland  mentalanguish.Inaddition,Wifesoughtpunitivedamagesintheamountof$500,000,allegingthat,  collectively,theDefendantsactedwillfully,maliciously,deliberately,andoutrageously.    Intheiranswer,theDefendantsadmittedthatthesumswerewithdrawnfromWifestrust X  accountspursuanttoHusbandsrequest,butdeniedanyconspiracy,fraud,orbreachoffiduciary D! duty.Asanaffirmativedefense,theDefendantsassertedthatWifefailedtostateaclaimuponwhich 0"  reliefcouldbegrantedbecausetheaccountsactuallybelongedtothedaughters,notWife,andthat #l! onlythedaughtersorsomeoneactingontheirbehalfcouldseektorecoverthefunds.Consequently, $X" accordingtothedefendants,Wifelackedstandingtofilethelawsuit. $D #   Wifemovedforpartialsummaryjudgment,arguingthat,asamatteroflaw,shewasentitled &"% todamagesfortheimpropertransferofthefunds.Afterthat,daughtersShellySegalandLisaSegal '#& (collectively Daughters)movedtointerveneaspartiesplaintiffinthecause.TheDaughters (#' allegedthattheyweretherealpartiesininterestwithrespecttothemoniesinthetrustaccounts.  ShellySegalattachedanaffidavittothemotiontointervene.Inheraffidavit,ShellySegalclaimed  thatshewasawareofthetransferspursuanttoHusbandsrequestanddidnotobjecttothe$27,500  amountbeingusedtopaybackthemaritaldebtscreatedwhenWifetookthe$28,000inadvances t onthemaritalcreditcards. `   Afterbeingpermittedtointervene,theDaughtersfiledamotiontodismissWifescomplaint. 8  ThemotiontodismissarguedthatWifelackedstandingtosuebecausetheDaughterswerethelegal $ t ownersofthetrustaccountsand,atthetimeofthefilingofthemotiontodismiss,bothwereadults.  ` WifesresponsearguedthattheDaughterswerenotthelegalownersofthefundsbecausetheywere  L  bothminorswhentheaccountswereoriginallycreated.ThetrialcourtdeniedtheDaughtersmotion  8  todismissWifeslawsuit,findingthatthemotionwas prematureatthistimebecausethepleadings $  stateasufficientcauseofactionwhichwarrantsatrialofthismatter.     OnJuly8,1998,theDefendantscollectivelyfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,arguing   thatWifewasunabletoestablishanydamagesbecauseshewasnottheowneroftheaccountsin   question.Wifesresponsetothemotionassertedthatshewastheowneroftheaccountsinquestion p anddeniedthecontentionthatshesufferednodamageasaresultoftheunauthorizedtransfer.On \ March17,1999,ChancellorFloydPeetedeniedtheDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment.He H didnotelaborateonthereasonsforhisruling. 4   Inthefollowingseveralyears,ChancellorPeetediedandChancellorArnoldGoldinassumed  \ thebench.TheproceedingsinthedivorcebetweenHusbandandWifeproceeded.Nearlyfiveyears H aftertheDefendantsoriginalmotionsforsummaryjudgmentweredenied,onJanuary9,2004,the 4 BankandRhondaDiLeonardofiledanothermotionforsummaryjudgment.Similartothe1998   motionforsummaryjudgment,thismotionarguedthattheWifewasnottheownerofthefundsin   theBanktrustaccountsandsufferednodamagesasaresultoftheunauthorizedtransfers.The  movantsattachedaRule56listofundisputedfactstotheirsummaryjudgmentmotion.Init,the  movantsreferredtoboththesignaturecardsandRhondaDiLeonardosdepositiontodemonstrate  thatWifewasnottheownerofthefundsintheBankaccounts.Additionally,themovantsrelied l uponWifesdepositiontestimonyinthedivorceactionagainstHusband,inwhichshestatedthatthe X  moneysheplacedintheBankaccountsfortheDaughterswasagifttotheDaughters.Other D! depositiontestimonyfromtheWifeindicatedthatthefundswerereportedontheDaughterstax 0"  returns,nottheWifes. #l!   OnFebruary26,2004,WifefiledherresponsetotheDefendantsmotionforsummary $D # judgment.Wifearguedthat(1)theestablishmentoftheBankaccountswasnotintendedasagift %0!$ fortheDaughters,butinstead wasawaytohideandpreventfundsfromgettinginthehandsof &"% judgmentcreditors,(2)shedidnotauthorizetheBankstransferofthefunds,and(3)shewasthe '#& onlypersonauthorizedtowithdrawanyfundsfromtheaccountsbecauseshewastheownerofthe (#' accounts.Additionally,Wifearguedthattherewasafactquestionastowhethershewastheowner )$( ofthefundsthatsheoriginallydepositedintheBankaccounts. |*%)  h+&*   Withherresponse,Wifefiledanaffidavitsettingforththefactsregardingherestablishment  oftheBanktrustaccounts,thesubsequentdepositsmadeintotheaccounts,thecircumstances  surroundingtheunauthorizedtransferofthosefunds,andHusbandsdispositionofthosefundsonce  theBanktransferredthemoniestohim.Inheraffidavit,Wifestatedasfollows: t 8  Isetuptheseaccountsontheadviceofmylawyer,TedWinestone.Wewereaware L  thatjudgmentscouldbehandeddownagainstmebycreditorsofmyfathers 8  business....Theseaccountswere,Iadmit,aruse.Ineverintendedthatthesefunds $ t wouldgotomychildren. `     Thereafter,Husbandfiledhisownmotionforsummaryjudgment.Thestatementof  8  undisputedfactssubmittedbyHusbandwasnearlyidenticaltothatsubmittedbytheother $  Defendants.Wifesresponsewasalsoidenticalwithonenotableexception.InWifesaffidavit   accompanyingherresponsetoHusbandsmotionforsummaryjudgment,herexplanationregarding   herpurposeforestablishingtheaccounts,setforthabove,wasomitted.   Ѐ     OnMarch5,2004,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingthemotionforsummaryjudgment p filedbytheBankandBankemployeeRhondaDiLeonardo.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatthe \ DefendantsBankandRhondaDiLeonardowereentitledtoajudgment,asamatteroflaw,basedon H thedoctrineofuncleanhands.Thetrialcourtexplaineditsruling: 4 8  VirginiaSegalrelieduponherAffidavitfiledinthiscauseonoraboutFebruary26,  \ 2004.InthatAffidavit,VirginiaSegalstatesTheseaccountswere,Iadmit,aruse H andthattheaccountswereafraudtodefeatjudgmentcreditors.Itisaxiomaticina 4 courtofequitythathewhodoesinequityshallnothaveequity.VirginiaSegal   shouldnothavetheaidofthisCourtinfurtheringherfraudulentintent.Theactions   complainedof...havenotcausedinjurytoVirginiaSegalandsheisnotentitledto  anyrelief...asamatteroflaw.   \;OnSeptember7,2004,theChanceryCourtgrantedHusbandsmotionforsummaryjudgmentas l well. #  2       X    Onappeal,WifearguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingtheDefendantsmotionsfor 0"  summaryjudgment.WifeassertsthattheBankillegallytransferredthefundsintheDaughters #l! accountstoHusband,andthatHusbandwaswithoutauthorizationtoremovethefunds.The $X" Defendantsrespondthatthetrialcourtproperlyappliedthedoctrineofuncleanhandsinholding $D # that,asamatteroflaw,Wifewasnotentitledtorelief. %0!$   Thesummaryjudgmentprocessisdesignedtoprovideanefficientandinexpensive '#& mechanismfordisposingofcases;therulesprovideaprocedure toenablethecourtstopiercethe (#' pleadingstodeterminewhetherthecasejustifiesthetimeandexpenseoftrial. Byrdv.Hall ,847  S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993).Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlywhenthemovingparty  demonstrates(1)thattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactrequiringresolution,and(2)that  sheisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04; Christenberryv.Tipton ,160 t S.W.3d487,491!92(Tenn.2005); Byrd ,847S.W.2dat210.Becausesummaryjudgmentisgranted d onlywhentherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfact,atrialcourtsgrantofamotionforsummary P  judgmentpresentsalegal,notfactual,questionforthisCourt. See,e.g.,Eadiev.CompleteCo. ,142 <  S.W.3d288,291(Tenn.2004); Goodloev.State ,36S.W.3d62,65(Tenn.2001).Consequently, ( x thestandardforreviewingagrantofsummaryjudgmentisdenovo,withnopresumptionofthe  d correctnessofthetrialcourtslegalconclusions. Christenberry ,160S.W.3dat491.  P    Inthiscase,theChanceryCourtdeterminedthatPlaintiff/AppellantVirginiaSegalwasnot (  entitledtorelieffromthecourt,asamatteroflaw,inlightofheradmittedlyfraudulentpurposefor   establishingtheBanktrustaccountsintheDaughtersnames.Thisconclusionwasrootedina   fundamentaltenetofCourtsofequity"thedoctrineofuncleanhands.Itderivesfromtheequitable   maximstatedsuccinctlyinthetreatise,GibsonsSuitsinChancery: Hewhocomesintoequitymust   comewithcleanhands. Thomasv.Hedges ,183S.W.2d14,16(Tenn.Ct.App.1944)(citing t GibsonsSuitsinChancery,42and51); seealso,C.F.SimmonsMedicineCo.v.MansfieldDrug ` Co. ,23S.W.165(Tenn.1893).  ThedoctrinewasdiscussedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtin L anopinionauthorednearlytwohundredyearsago: 8 8  Ifacomplainantscauseofactionoriginatesininiquity,althoughhemayhavethe ` right,asagainsthisantagonist,thecourtofchancerywillturnhimoutwithoutrelief, L becauseitwillnotgiveitsaidtotheestablishmentandenforcementofarightso 8 stainedwithsin.$    Goodwinv.Hunt ,1832WL1108,at*1(Tenn.Err.&App.March1832); seealso,Sartainv.Dixie  Coal&IronCo. ,266S.W.313,316(Tenn.1924). Theprinciplebehindthedoctrineremains  unchanged:  8  Theprincipleisgeneral,andisoneofthemaximsoftheCourt,thathewhocomes \  intoaCourtofEquityaskingitsinterpositioninhisbehalf,mustcomewithclean H! hands;andifitappearfromthecasemadebyhim...thathehashimselfbeenguilty 4"  ofunconscientious,inequitable,orimmoralconduct,inandaboutthesamematters  #p! whereofhecomplainsofhisadversary,orifhisclaimtoreliefgrowsoutof,or  $\" dependsupon,orisinseparablyconnectedwithhisownpriorfraud,hewillbe $H # repelledatthethresholdofthecourt.%4!$    ContinentalBankersLifeIns.Co.oftheSouth,Inc.v.Simmons ,561S.W.2d460,465(Tenn.Ct. ' #& App.1977)(citing C.F.SimmonsMedicineCo.v.MansfieldDrugCo. ,23S.W.165(Tenn.1893)). (#' Ѐ  Intheinstantcase,Wifeseekstorecoverfundsfromaccountswhich,sheadmits,she *%) establishedforafraudulentpurpose.WhileWife,astheoneauthorizedsignatoryontheaccounts, l+&* mayhavestatedavalidclaimfortheBanksunauthorizedtransferofthefunds,wecannotsaythat  theChanceryCourterredinapplyingthedoctrineofuncleanhandsto repelWife atthethreshold  ofthecourt.    Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsofthisappealareassessedagainstAppellant ` VirginiaStarrSegal,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary. L       `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     HOLLYM.KIRBY,JUDGE