First Tennessee Bank National Association v. C.T. Resorts Company, Inc., C. Gary Triggs, and James C. Childrers

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedOctober 2, 1995
Docket03A01-9503-CH-00102
StatusPublished

This text of First Tennessee Bank National Association v. C.T. Resorts Company, Inc., C. Gary Triggs, and James C. Childrers (First Tennessee Bank National Association v. C.T. Resorts Company, Inc., C. Gary Triggs, and James C. Childrers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
First Tennessee Bank National Association v. C.T. Resorts Company, Inc., C. Gary Triggs, and James C. Childrers, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

FILED October 2, 1995 FI RST TENNESSEE BANK NATI ONAL ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9503- CH- 00 1 0 2 Cecil Crowson, Jr. ASSOCI ATI ON, ) KNOX COUNTY CHANCERY COURTourt Clerk Appellate C ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e , ) ) ) ) ) ) v. ) HONORABLE SHARON BELL, ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) C. T. RESORTS COM PANY, I NC. , ) C. GARY TRI GGS a nd ) J AMES C. CHI LDERS, ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s . )

OPI NI ON ON PETI TI ON TO REHEAR

Fi r s t Te nne s s e e ha s f i l e d a pe t i t i on f or r e he a r i ng.

Th e p e t i t i on b a s i c a l l y a r gue s t wo poi nt s : f i r s t , t h a t t he

u n d i s p u t e d ma t e r i a l f a c t s s how t ha t t he de f e nda nt s di d not t i me l y

a s s e r t t he i r c l a i ms o f mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, a nd he nc e wa i ve d t he m;

a n d s e c ond, t ha t we e r r e d i n c ons t r ui ng t he pa r t i e s ' " Fi r s t

M d i f i c a t i on, Re ne wa l , a nd Ext e ns i on Agr e e me nt a nd Appoi nt me nt o f o

Su c c e s s or Tr us t e e . "

On t he wa i ve r i s s ue , we be l i e ve t he r e a r e di s put e s i n

t h e r e c or d r e ga r di ng t he a l l e ge d mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons ; wha t t he

1 d e f e n d a nt s l e a r ne d; whe n t he y l e a r ne d i t ; wha t , i f a nyt hi ng, t h e y

d i d wi t h t he i r knowl e dge ; a nd pos s i bl y ot he r f a c t ua l ma t t e r s

r e l a t e d t o t he a l l e ge d mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons . W a r e s t i l l " on t he e

p a pe r s " i n t hi s c a s e . The pa r t i e s ha ve not t r i e d t hi s c a s e t o

t he t r i e r of f a c t . The f a c t s be f or e us on t he s ubj e c t of f r a ud

a r e s pa r s e . W c a nnot s a y t ha t t he f a c t s be f or e us c onc l us i ve l y e

s h o w t ha t Fi r s t Te nne s s e e i s e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r

o f l a w on t he ba s i s of wa i ve r of t he mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on c l a i ms .

Re s o l u t i on of t ha t i s s ue mus t be ma de by t he t r i a l c our t a f t e r a

he a r i ng. W r e i t e r a t e t ha t we e xpr e s s no opi ni on a s t o t he e

me r i t s of t he ba nk' s pos i t i on on t he i s s ue of wa i ve r . The i s s u e

o f f r a ud a nd i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o i t a r e r a r e l y s us c e pt i bl e t o

r e s o l u t i on by s umma r y j udg me nt . Se e Long v . St at e Fi r e &

Ca s ua l t y Co. , 510 S. W 2d 517, 519 ( Te nn. App. 1974) . .

M ny of t he i s s ue s t ha t we r e r a i s e d by t he pl e a di ngs a

h a v e b e e n r e s ol ve d by our or i gi na l opi ni on. Some i s s ue s r e ma i n .

Th e f a c t s of t hi s c a s e a s t o t he r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s , i nc l udi ng t h e

wa i v e r i s s ue , mus t be f ound by t he t r i e r of f a c t a f t e r he a r i ng

a l l o f t he a dmi s s i bl e e vi de nc e ; onl y t he n c a n t hos e i s s ue s be

de c i de d. Summa r y j udgme nt i s not a s ubs t i t ut e f or a t r i a l of

g e n u i n e i s s ue s of f a c t s . Se e By r d v . Hal l , 847 S. W 2d 208, 21 0 .

( Te n n . 1993) ( " . . . [ s umma r y j udgme nt ] i s c l e a r l y not de s i gne d t o

s e r v e a s a s ubs t i t ut e f or t he t r i a l of ge nui ne a nd ma t e r i a l

f a c t u a l ma t t e r s . " )

As t o t he s e c ond i s s ue r a i s e d i n t he pe t i t i on f or

r e he a r i ng, we be l i e ve we a r e c or r e c t i n our i nt e r pr e t a t i on of t h e

r e l e a s e l a ngua ge i n t he pa r t i e s ' a gr e e me nt .

2 The pe t i t i on f or r e he a r i ng i s he r e by DENI ED a t t he c o s t

o f t h e a ppe l l e e .

I T I S SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

________________________________ Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________ Do n T. M M r a y, J . c ur

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Byrd v. Hall
847 S.W.2d 208 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Long v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
510 S.W.2d 517 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
First Tennessee Bank National Association v. C.T. Resorts Company, Inc., C. Gary Triggs, and James C. Childrers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-tennessee-bank-national-association-v-ct-res-tennctapp-1995.