Zanetis v. McMackin

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Zanetis v. McMackin

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

Docket01A01-9705-CV-00203

StatusPublished

This text of Zanetis v. McMackin (Zanetis v. McMackin) 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

Zanetis v. McMackin, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

FILED ALEXANDER ZANETIS and wife ) November 19, 1997 THELMA ZANETIS, ) ) Cecil W. Crowson Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Davidson Circuit ) No. 96C-135 VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9705-CV-00203 DAVID McMACKIN and ) BOATMEN’S NATIONAL ) MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., ) ) Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s opinion. This record contains no genuine, material factual disputes, and David McMackin and Boatmen’s National Mortgage Company are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law for two complementary reasons. First, Mr. McMackin did not owe a duty to Mr. and Ms. Zanetis; second, it was not reasonable for Mr. and Ms. Zanetis to rely on Mr. McMackin’s statements given their adversary posture with his client and the fact that they had retained their own attorney.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

FILED ALEXANDER ZANETIS and wife ) November 19, 1997 THELMA ZANETIS, ) ) Cecil W. Crowson Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Davidson Circuit ) No. 96C-135 VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9705-CV-00203 DAVID McMACKIN and ) BOATMEN’S NATIONAL ) MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., ) ) Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s opinion. This record contains no genuine, material factual disputes, and David McMackin and Boatmen’s National Mortgage Company are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law for two complementary reasons. First, Mr. McMackin did not owe a duty to Mr. and Ms. Zanetis; second, it was not reasonable for Mr. and Ms. Zanetis to rely on Mr. McMackin’s statements given their adversary posture with his client and the fact that they had retained their own attorney.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zanetis v. McMackin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zanetis-v-mcmackin-tennctapp-1997.