### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs O ct obe r 28, 200 9 OL INM ORRIS , S uc ce sso r Tr us te e of t heU . A . B. Ho ld in g T ru stv. M A R TI N A. GRUSIN, Fo rmer Trus tee o f U.A.B. Hol di ng Trus t, ET AL 

### . D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T - 004288- 06 K aren R . W i l l i am s , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00033- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed D ece m ber 22, 2009

A T r us tw as cr eat ed i n 1985. I n bot h 1997 and 1999, t he gr ant orcons ent ed t o t he us e of the T ru st’s sto c k s f

o r th e b e n e f

it o f a se p a ra te e n tity , o f w h ich th e T ru st o w n e d a o n e -h a lf i nt er es t
. I n 2001, an agr eementw as ent er ed w her ebyt h e T r us t ’ s s t ocks w er e pl edged t o a bank i n r etur n fora l oan t o t he Trus t
. T he Trus tt hen tr an sfer r ed t he l oan moni es t o t he s epar at e ent i t y t o pay off t he s epar at e ent i t y ’ s i ndebt ednes s . A ft ert he Trus t ee’ s r es i gnat i on, t he s ucce s s orT r us t ee br oughts ui t , al l egi ng br eac h of fi duci ar y dut i es , ci vi l cons pi r acy , and m i sapprop ri at i on and con versi on . T he t ri al cou rt grant ed t he defen dan t s’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss, f in d in g th a t th e yh a d n o t e n g a g e d in u n la w f u l c o n d u c t. P la in tif

f a p p e a ls , a n d w e a f

f ir m . T enn. R . A pp. P . 3; A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W
. S. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , and J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J
. , j oi ned. R ob ertD
. F l y nn , M i chael R

. F l y nn , M em ph i s, T enn essee, for t he ap pell a n t, O l i n M orr i s, S uccessor T rust ee of

t he U

. A

. B
. H oldi ng T rust R a n d a ll D . N o e l, M e m p h is , T e n n e s s e e ; D o n n a B ro w n J a c o b s , J o h n A . C ra w f o rd , J r., M emphi s , T ennes s ee f

ort he appe l l ees , C B C W or l d M ar ket s C orpor at i on and J ohn A s hbyWe n ote th at the Trust Agreem ent is poorly cop ied, and thus, certainparts are illeg ible. 1 Tennesse e C ode Ann otatedsectio n 3 5- 618, no w Tennessee Cod e Annotate d se ction 35- 50- 110, 2 pr ovid ed in p art:
-2-

I. F ACTS & P ROCEDURAL H I ST ORY On J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 5 , W i l l i a m B. Ta n n e r( “ Ta nn e r ” ) , a s g r a n t o r , c r e a t e d t h e U. A. B. H ol di ng T r us t( “Trus t ”) fort he bene fi tof hi s gr andchi l dr en. M ar t i n A

. G r us i n ( “G r us i n”) wa s n a me d Tru s t e e , a n d t h e Tru s twa s f u n d e d wi t h s t o c k o f

wh a two u l d e v e n t u a l l yb e c o me R egions B ank

. T he T rustA greem ent pr ov i ded , i n rel evan tpart , as fol l ow s: 1

( a) I empow ert he Trus t ee . . . w i t hout aut hor i zat i on or appr oval of any cour t , t o acqui r e, bypur chas e orot herw ise, and r et ai n, t empora r i l yor per m anent l y , anyand al l ki nds of r eal t yand per s onal t y , even c om m on s t ocks a n d u n se c u re d o b lig a tio n s, w ith o u t d iv e rsif ica tio n a s to k in d o r [ ill e g ib le] ; se ll orot her w i s e di s pos e of a nys uch pr opert y , publ i cl yorpr i vat el y , w hol l yor p a rtlyo n c re d it, d e leg a te- d isc re tio n a n d d istrib u te in k in d o r m o n e y o r p a rtly i n eac h. ( b) T he Trus t ee s hal l notbe l i abl e for any i nves t m entorm anage m ent d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e a s s e t s o f t h i s Tru s t ma d e d u r i n g t h e Gr a n t o r ’ s l i f e t i me if h e h a s o b ta in e d th e w ri tte n c o n s e n t o r w ri tte n a p p ro v a l o f th e G ra n to r . . . . T h is c lau se sh a ll n o t b e in ter p re ted to lim it th e T ru ste e ’s c o n tro l o f th e a ss e ts of t he t r u s t b u t s h a l l a l l o w h i m a me a n s o f ma k i n g i n v e s t me n t s and m anage m entdeci s i ons w it h o u t f earof r epr i s al s orot herper s ons “s econdgues s i ng hi m . ” T hi s cl aus e i s cons i der ed nec es s ar ybyt he Trus t ee due t o t he f a c t th a t itis a n ticip a ted th a t th e p ro p e r a d m in istra tio n o f th e a ss e ts o f

th is T rustw i l l requi re num erous m anag em ent deci si on s w h ich are besteffo rt s, go od fai t h judgm ent deci si on s.

. . . . T he Trus t ee he r ei n i s aut hor i zed t o exer ci s e t he i nt r oduct or ypar agr aph of t he t hi r t y - t w o ( 32) enumer at ed pow er s found i n t he 1963 Publ i c A ct s of t he s t at e of Tennes s ee, C hapt er 110, Sect i on 3 ( T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed, Sec. 3 5 -5 0 -1 1 0 ), a n d I h e re b yin c o rp o ra te b yre f e re n c e sa id C o d e se c tio n in its 2Witho ut d iminut io n or

r es tr ic ti on

o f th e po w er s v es te d inh im b y law , o r el se whe re in

th is instrum ent, the fid

uciary , w ithout the n ecessity of p r ocuringany

judicial autho riz ation therefor, or appro v al there of, sha l l b e v ested with, and in the ap plication of h is bes t j udgm ent an d discretion in be half o f the beneficiaries of this ins trum ent sh all be authoriz ed to ex ercise, the p owe rs here unde r spec ifically enum erated:

. . . . 32

. To do any an d al l othe r th in g s, no t in v io lati on of any othe r te rm s of th is in strum ent, whic h, in the judgm ent o f the fiduciary , are ne cessary or approp r i a t e f

or the prop er m anag em ent, inv estm ent an d distribution of the assets of the estate in accord ance with the prov isions of the instrument, and in his judgm ent are for the b est interests of the es tate an d its ben eficiaries. Ten n. Cod e A nn. § 35-61 8 (1 977)

. B oth th e 19 97 and the 1 999 conse nts to pledg e state that “This authoriz ation is g iv en b ased upon 3 th e f a c tth atth e UA B Tr

u s ti s th e o wn e r

o f f i f ty ( 5 0 %) p e r c e nti nt e r e s ti nTann e r E qu i t i e s , L
. L
. C

. ” T h ey also s tate that b o th p art i e s “ r e c o gn i z e [ ] an d a gr e e [ ] th at th e p l e d g i n g o f s e c ur i t i e s o f th e UA B Tr u s t
. . . constitute [s a] v alid an d p rudent inv estm ent for the UAB Trust, enh ancingthe income of the UAB Trust and Tanner E quities, L. L.C .” This do cum ent is not in cluded in the rec ord before us. 4 -3- ent i r et yas i f copi ed her ei n verbat i m . T hese p ow er s ar e gr ant ed, n o tw ith stan d ing that said statu te m ayb e a m en d ed o r rep ea led h ere af ter. O n oraboutM ar ch 24, 1997, T annerE qui t i es , L L C ( “TannerE qui t i es ”) w as cr eat ed a s a n e n tityse p a ra te f

ro m th e T ru st. H o w e v e r, th e T ru s t h e ld a f if typ e rc e n t o w n e rsh ip i nt er es ti n T annerE qui t i es . B ot h t he T r us t and T anner E qui t i es hel d s ecur i t i es and t r adi ng acc ount s w i t h Pr udent i al Secur i t i es ( “Pr udent i al ”) , w i t h J ohn A s hby( “A sh b y ”) act i ng as br oker

. O n M ay 6 , 1 9 9 7 , T an nerand G r us i n exec ut ed a “ C ons entof Trus t ee t o Pl edge” document , aut hor i zi ng Pr udent i al “t o us e t he s ecur i t i es i n t he acc ountof t he U A B T r us tup t o t he mar gi n l i m i tfort he bene fi tof t he Tannerequi t i es , L
. L
. C

. acc ount
. ” I n M ayof 1999, A s hbyl eftPr udent i al and bec ame an offi cerand empl oy ee of O p p en h eim er & C o m p an y , Inc
. (“O p p en h eim er” ). T h e f o ll o w ing m o n th, th e T rust’s sec u ri ti es w ere tr an sfe rred fro m a P rud en ti al ac co u n t t o a n ew ac co u n t w ith O p p en h eim er. A s econd “ C ons entt o T r u stee t o Pl edge” document w as exec ut ed byT annerand G r us i n, aut hor i zi ng O ppenhei m er“t o us e t he s ecur i t i es i n t he ac countof t he U A B T r us tup t o t he m a rg in lim it f

o r t h e b e n e f

it o f th e T a n n e r E q u itie s , L .L .C . a c c o u n t.” 3 B yO ct ober2, 2001, T annerE qui t i es al l egedl yhad an uns ecur ed mar gi n of in d e b ted n e ss o f

$ 1 4 ,9 7 0 ,6 2 1 .0 0 in th e O p p e n h e im e r a c c o u n t. O n th a t d a te, a n “ E q u ity Pr ot ect i on A gr eement ” w as al l egedl ybr oker ed betw een th e T rustand C om m er z B ank. 4Th e amended co m pla intsta te d tha t Oppe nhe imer & Co. purch ase d CI BC Oppenh ei m erfro m CIBC 5 Wo rl d Market s C or

p. in J anuary of 20 03 , and

that C I B C Op pe nh ei m er Co

. is no wnamed

O pp enhe im er

& Co, Inc. Acco rding to Morris, CIBC World Mark ets Corp

. “contrac tually agreed to retain

respo nsibility

for cl ai m s su ch as t he se p re se nt ed b y th e al le g at io n of

th is Am en de d C om

pl ai n whi chp re - date th e sa le in January [ of ] 20 03 [. ]” Thus, Morris v oluntarily dismissed i t s c l a i m against Op penh eim er & C o., Inc. on Octo ber 9 , 2 007. The trial c ourt’s “ Order GrantingD efendants’ Motio n to Dismiss” o f D ecem ber 4 , 2 008, 6 incorpo rated its Nov em

ber 2 6, 2008 corres pond ence. The trial c ourt mistakenly stated that the T rust was created in 1987; howe v er, there is no indication 7 that this error affected its ana ly sis. -4- U ndert he Equi t y Pr ot ect i on A gr eement , t he Trus tpurpor t edl ydel i ver ed 612, 000 s har es of R e g io n s B a n k sto c k to C o m m e rz B a n k in e x c h a n g e f o r a l o a n o f

$ 1 4 ,9 7 0 ,6 2 1 .0 0 to th e T ru st. T he Trus tt hen, al l eg ed ly , us ed t hos e funds t o payoff TannerE qui t i es ’ m ar gi n of in d e b te d n e s s to O p p e n h e im e r. G r us i n r es i gned as T r us t ee i n O ct o b e ro f 2 004, and O l i n M or r i s ( “M or r i s ”) w as named s ucce s s orT r us t ee. T anner di ed i n D ece m berof 2005. O n A ugus t15, 2006, M or r i s fi l ed a com plai nt agai nst G rusi n, al l eging br each of fi du ci arydu t yand ci vil con spi racy , and against O p p e n h e i m e ra n d A s h b y, a l l e g i n g m i s a p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d c o n v e r s i o n , b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a ry d u ty, and ci vi l cons pi r acy . M or r i s cl ai m ed t hat G r us i n fai l ed t o di s cl os e t o t he bene fi ci ar i es t hat he had us ed t he T r us t ’ s as s et s t o pay off t he T annerE qui t i es debt“w i t houtanyexpec t at i on of eve rr ecove r i ng t he nea r l y$15, 000, 000 fr om T annerE q u it ie s . ” The com pl ai ntw as am end ed o n A ug ust 24 , 20 06 , t o n am e C IB C W o rl d M arket s C orporat i on (“C IB C ”) as a d e f e n d a n t. 5 A sh b y a n d C IB C (c o llec tiv e ly , “ D e f e n d a n ts” ), f

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to T ennes s ee Rul e of Ci v i l Pr o c edur e 12. 02( 6) , cl ai m i ng t hatM or r i s ’ amended compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. Speci fi cal l y , D efe ndant s cl ai m ed t hat M or r i s ’ s amended compl ai ntal l eged no unl aw ful conductbyD efe ndant s , as he admi t t ed t hat D ef en d an ts w ere au tho ri ze d to p ledg e the T rust’s sh are s. F o ll o w ing a he aring , the t ri al co u rt grant ed D efen dan t s’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss, fi nd i ng as fol l ow s: 6 1. T hi s cas e i s a R ul e 12 M o ti o n to D i s m i s s nota R ul e 56 M ot i on for S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t. 2

. T h e T r u s twa s c r e a t e d i n 1 9 8 [ 5 ] b yWi l l i a m B
. T a n n e r . M a r t i n A. 7 G ru sin w a s n a m e d th e T ru ste e a n d w a s g iv e n b ro a d p o w e r to a c t w ith t he w r i t t en conse nt of M r . T anner . A tt he t i m e, T ennes s ee s t atut or yandO n ap peal, Morris do es n ot ch alleng e the trial court’s findin gthat these acts are inap plicable. 8 There is no indication

that the trial court’s f

i nd i ngs o f

l a wfulness w ere b ased on the Trust 9 Agreem ent’s e xculpatory claus e. -5- case l aw perm i t t ed thi s. 3. I n 1997, a C ons entt o Pl edge w as ent er ed i nt o pur s uant t o t he t er m s of t he Trus t
. T hi s w as l aw ful att he t i m e. 4. I n 1999, a s econd Consentt o Pl edge w as ent er ed i nt o. T hi s w as l aw ful att he t i m e. 5. I n O ct ober2001, t he Equi t yPr ot ect i on A gr eement w i t h C om m er zB ank w as en tered i nt o and t he mar gi n acc ountw as pai d off w i t h t he pr ocee ds

. T hi s w as l aw ful att he t i m e. 6. I n 2002, t he Tennes s ee Legi s l ature p assed t he U ni for m Pr udent I nves t orA ctand i n 2004, t he Ten n esse e Legi s l atur e pas s ed t he U ni for m T en n ess ee Tr us tC ode. T hes e ac t s r es t r i ct ed t he fr eedom of t he Trus t ees and made unl aw ful t he t ype of tr ansa cti o ns t aken by T anner , G r us i n, A s hbyand C I B C

. H ow ever , t he 2 0 0 2 A ct and the 2 0 0 4 A ct are n o t app li ca b le t o the c ase at ba r. 8 7. Si nce the ac t s t aken byD efe ndant s and M r . T annerw er e l aw ful pur s uantt o t he Trus ti ns t r um entand t he t hen appl i cabl e l aw , t he M ot i on t o D i s m i s s i s gr ant ed. 9

II. I SSUES P RESENT ED A ppel l anthas t i m el yfi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l and pr es ent s t he fol l ow i ng i s s ue for r e v i e w: 1

. D id th e trial c o u rt e r r in g r a n tin g th e D e f e n d a n ts J o h n A sh b ya n d C IB C W o rld M ar ket s M ot i ons t o D i s m i s s w her e t he di s m i s s al w as bas ed up o n an al l eged e x c u lp a to ryc lau se in th e T ru st A g re e m e n t?-6- III . S T AN DA RD OF R EVIE W F ir st, w e m u st ad d ress the stan d ard o f rev iew in this c ase . D ef en d an ts urg e this C o u rt to ad o p t, fo r pu rpo ses o f m o ti o n s to d ism iss un d er T en n esse e R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 12. 02( 6) , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s “cl ar if i ed” s t andar d of r evi ew r egar di ng d is m is s a ls p u rs u a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )( 6 ). ( A ppel l ee’ s B r7)

. D efe ndant s s ugges tt hatt he “famous obs er vat i on” i n C onl ey v . G i bs on , 355 U

. S. 41, 45- 56 (1 9 5 7 ), abr ogat ed by B e ll A tl

. C o r p . v. T w o m b ly , 550 U

. S. 554 ( 2007) , t hat“a c om pl ai nt s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed for fa il ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m unl es s i tappea r s bey ond doubtt hatt he pl ai nt i ff c an pr ove no s etof fa ct s i n s uppor t of hi s cl ai m w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef” w as r et i r ed by t he U ni t ed S t at es Supr eme C our ti n B e ll A tla n tic C o rp o ra tio n v . T w o m b ly , 550 U
. S. 544, 561 ( 2007)

. D efe ndant s ci t e t he r ece ntcas e of A s hcr of tv. I qbal , 129 S. C t
. 1937, 1949 ( 2009) , w her ei n t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , appl y i ng T w o m b ly , sta ted : T o s ur vi ve a mot i on to di s m i s s , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac t ual m a tte r, a c c e p te d a s tr u e , to “ s ta te a c la im to re lie f th a t is p la u s ib le o n its f a c e .” [ T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U. S

. a t5 7 0 ]

. A cl ai m has fac i al pl aus i bi l i t y w hen t he pl ai nt i ff pl eads fa ctua l c ont entt hatal l ow s t he cour tt o dr aw t he r eas onabl e i nfer ence th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is lia b le f

o r t h e m i s c o n d u c t a lle g e d

. Id

. [] at556 []

. T he pl aus i bi l i t ys t andar d i s not aki n t o a “pr obabi l i t yr equi r ement , ” buti tas ks for m o re th a n a s h e e r p o s s ib ility th a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s a c te d u n l a w f u lly. Ib id

. W h e r e a c o m p l a i n t p l e a d s f a c t s t h a ta r e “ m e r e l y c o n s i s t e n tw i t h ” a d e f e n d a n t 's l i abi l i t y , i t“s t ops s hor tof t he l i ne betw een pos s ibil it y an d pl aus i bi l i t yof
‘ ent i t l ement t o r el i ef. ’ ” I d. [] at 55 7 [.]
T he C our tfur t herexpl ai ned t hat“t he t enett hata cour tm us tac ce p t as t r ue al l of t he al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n a compl ai nti s i nappl i cabl e t o l egal concl us i o n s[,]” and t hat “thre ad b are rec it als o f th e e lem en ts of a c au se o f a cti o n , s u p p o rt ed b ym ere co n clus o ry s t at ement s , do nots uffi ce. ” I d. ( ci t i ng T

w o m b ly , 550 U
. S. at 555)

. T he C our t adopt ed a tw ostep ap p roa ch to an aly zing a c o m p lai n t cha ll en g ed u n d e r F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 12( b) ( 6) : fi r s t , t he cour ti dent i fi es concl us or yal l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntt hatar e not ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of t r ut h; and s econd, t he cour tcons i der s w het hert he fa ctual al l egat i ons “pl aus i bl ys ugges tan ent i t l ement t o r el i ef. ” I d. a t 1 9 5 1

. A lth o u g h T e n n e ss e e R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 .0 2 (6 ) a n d F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(6 ) are sim il ar, T he Supr eme C our t s of t he re s pect i ve st at es ar e bound onl ybydeci s i ons of t he S up rem e C ou rtof the U nit ed S t at es w hen t hat C ou rtho l ds t hat a gi ven cou rs e of conduc ti s uncons t i t ut i onal undert he fe der al cons t i t ut i on.-7-

B ow m an v. Hen ard , 5 4 7 S

. W
. 2 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 0 ( Te n n . 1 9 7 7 )

. Th u s , t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t ’ s s t andar d for di s m i s s al pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) does not b ind the c o u rt s o f th is st ate reg ard ing d ism issals un d er T en n esse e R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 .0 2 (6 ).
T h e T e n n e ss e e S u p re m e C o u rt, r e g a r d in g m o tio n s to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 .0 2 (6 ), re c e n tlysta ted :
A R ul e 12. 02( 6) m ot i on under t he T ennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e s eeks to d et er m i ne w het hert he pl eadi ngs s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe g ra n te d

. E dw ar ds v. A l l en, 216 S. W
. 3d 278, 284 ( T enn. 2007)

. Such a mot i on t es t s onl yt he l egal s uffi ci encyof t he compl ai nt , nott he s t r engt h of t he pr oof. T he r es ol ut i on of t he mot i on i s det er m i ned byan exa m i nat i on of t he pl eadi ngs a lo n e . C o o k ex r e l. Uith o v e n v . S p in n a k e r 's o

f R iv e r g a te , In c ., 878 S. W
. 2d 934, 938 ( T enn. 1994) ( ci t i ng W olcot t s F i n. Servs. , Inc. v. McR eyno l ds, 807 S. W
. 2d 708, 710 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1990) )

. For purpos es of ana l y s i s , t he mot i on cont empl at es t hatal l r el evantand mat er i al al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt , even i f t r ue and c or r ect , do not cons t i t ut e a caus e of act i on. I n cons i der i ng a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , cour t s m us t cons t r ue t he ass er t i ons i n t he compl ai ntl i ber al l y ; t he m ot i on cannotbe s us t ai ned unl es s i tappea r s t hatt her e ar e no fac t s w ar r ant i ng re lie f

. C ook, 878 S. W
. 2d at938 ( ci t i ng Fu e rs t v . Me th o d is t Ho s p . S ., 566 S. W
. 2d 847, 848- 49 ( T enn. 1978) ). O n appea l , al l al l egat i ons of fa ctbyt he P la in tif f s m u s t b e ta k e n a s tr u e . S te in v . D a v id s o n H o te l C o ., 945 S. W
. 2d 714, 716 ( T enn. 1997)

. O urs co p e o f rev i ew i s de novo w i t h no pr es um pt i on of c o rr e c tn e s s . C ol oni alP i pel i ne C o . v. Mor

gan, 263 S. W
. 3d 827, 836 (T e n n .2 0 0 8 ); O w e n s v . T r u c k s to p s o f A m ., 9 1 5 S

. W
. 2 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 6 ).
H ig h w o o d s P ro p e rtie s, In c . v. City o

f Me mp h is , --- S

. W
. 3 d

--- -, 2009 W L 2226091, at*3 ( T enn. 2009)

. W e “r evi ew t he t r i al cour t ’ s l egal concl us i ons r egar di ng t he ade quacyof t he compl ai nt w i t hout a pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s . ” R ose v. C oo kevil le R eg’l Med. Ctr. , N o. M 2007- 02368-C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 8 W L 2 0 7 8 0 5 6 , at *4 (T en n . C t. A p p . M ay 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 ) (cit i ng Mar ceaux v. Thom

ps on , 2 1 2 S .W .3 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 7 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ))

. “O nce the Tennes s ee S upr eme C our thas addr es s ed an i s s ue, i t s deci s i on r egar di ng t hati s s ue i s bi ndi ng on t he l ow ercour t s . ” D a v is v . D a v is , No
. M 2 0 0 3

- 0 2 3 1 2

- CO A- R3

- CV , 2004 W L 2296507, at *6 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. O ct
. 12, 2004) ( ci t i ng St at e v. I r i ck , 906 S. W
. 2d 4 4 0 , 4 4 3 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ); P ayne v . Johns on , 2 T enn. C as . ( Shannon) 542, 543 ( 1877) )

. “The-8-

C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s n o a u th o ri ty to o v e rr u le o r m o d if y[ th e ] S u p re m e C o u r t’ s o p in io n s .” B loo dw orth v. S t u art , 428 S. W
. 2d 786, 789 ( T enn. 1968) ( ci t i ng C i t y of Mem phis v. O ver t on , 3 9 2 S .W .2 d 8 6 , 9 7 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 6 3 ); L evi t an v. B an niz a , 2 3 6 S .W .2 d 9 0 , 9 5 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 5 0 )); s ee al

s o B ar gerv. B r ock , 5 3 5 S

. W
. 2 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 0

- 4 1 ( T e n n . 1 9 7 6 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a re n o t at li b erty to ad o p t the m o re li b era l stan d ard fo r d ism issi n g co m p lai n ts f o r fa il u re to s ta te a c la im u rg e d b yD e f e n d a n ts
.
I V. D I SC US SI ON A . E xcu l pa tory Clau se
O n ap p ea l, M o rri s arg u es th at dism issal bas ed u p o n the T rust A g ree m en t’ s e x c u lp a to rycl ause w as i nap propri at e. S pecifi cal l y , he assert s t hat the ex culpat orycl ause s houl d be i nval i dat ed bec aus e “[ p] r i ort o 2002, T ennes s ee di d not have a s t atut e author i zi ng excul pat or y cl aus es i n t r us t agr eement s [, ] ” and beca us e t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e vi ol at es t he publi c p ol i cyof t hi s s t at e. H e al s o cont ends t hatt he exc ul pat or ycl aus e “s houl d notbe enfor ced be caus e G r us i n’ s act i ons cons t i t ut e w i l l ful and/ orgr os s negl i gence . ”
Fi r s t , w e not e t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of M or r i s ’ compl ai nt w as notbas ed on t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e, as M or r i s s ugges t s , but i ns t ead w as bas ed on i t s fi ndi ng t hatnone of th e D e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in u n law f u l co n d u c t. W e n e e d n o t ad d re ss M o rris’ a rg u m e n ts r egar di ng t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e bec aus e i tfor ecl os ed l i abi l i t yonl yas t o G r us i n, w ho has been di s m i s s ed fr om t hi s cas e.
B . Ci vil C onspir acy
M o rris a lso a rg u e s th a t h is c iv il c o n sp ira c y c laim a g a in st D e f e n d a n ts w a s im p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed, as “t he exc ul pat or y claus e w oul d notaff ectJ ohn A s hbyand/ orC I B C

. ” A gai n, M orr i s m i st aken l yargues t hat the tr i a l c o u rt’s d i sm i ssal w as fou nd ed o n the T rust A greem ent’ s exculpat orycl ause. M orr i s c on t end s t hat even if the ex culpat orycl ause rel i eved G rusi n from l i abil i t y , i tdid not afford i m m un i t yt o D efen dan t s.
A s w e sta ted a b o v e , the trial c o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f M o rris’ c laim s– in c lu d in g c iv il c o n sp ira c y
– w a s b a se d o n its f in d in g th a t n o n e o f

th e p a rties e n g a g e d in u n law f u l co n d u c t. O n appea l , D efe ndant s cont end t hatbeca us e M or r i s ’ amended compl ai ntacknow l edged that T a n n e rc o n s e n t e d t o G r u s i n ’ s a c t i o n s , t h a tMo r r i s h a s f a i l e d t o a l l e g e u n l a w f

u l c o n d u c t
. We rej ect t his con t enti on becau se T ann er’ s consen tfai l s t o co nclusi velyest abli sh l aw fulness.R eg ardingthe law in forc e at the time of the ev ents, Morris argues o nl y t ha tt he law w ould not 10 hav e authoriz ed th e T rust Agreem ent’s exculpato ry clause, and that the com

m on law wou ld hav e inv alidated the ex culpato ry

claus e as ag ainst p ublic policy

. -9- N onet hel es s , w e uphol d t he t r i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of M or r i s ’ ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m . “The el ement s of a c aus e of a ct i on for ci vi l cons pi r acy ar e: ( 1) a comm on des i gn bet w een tw o or m o re p erso n s, (2) t o accom pl is h by conc er t ed acti o n a n unl aw f ulpur pos e, ora l aw

f ul pur pos e by unlaw

f ulm eans , ( 3) an over tacti n fur t her ance of t he cons pir acy , and ( 4) r es ul t i ng i nj ur y . ” Ki nc aid v. Sout hTr us t Bank , 221 S. W
. 3d 32, 38 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2006) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Mo r g a n v . Br u s h Wel lman , I nc. , 1 6 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 7 0 4 , 7 2 0 ( E
. D. T enn . 20 01 ))

. O n ap peal, M orr i s does no tchall eng e t he t ri al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng t hat D efen dan t s’ act i ons w er e l aw ful , t hus w e w i l l notad d res s t he i s s ue. W i t houtan unl aw ful actbyt he 10 D efe ndant s , M or r i s ’ ci vi l cons pi r acy cl ai m fai l s . T hus , t he t r i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al i s aff i r m ed.

V. C ONC L US I ON
F o r t h e a f

o re m e n tio n e d re a s o n s , w e a f f ir m th e c ir c u it c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l. C o sts o f th is appea l ar e t axed t o t he appe l l ant , O l in M or r i s , Succes s orT r us t ee of t he U

. A

. B
. H ol di ng T r u s t , a n d h i s s u r e t y, f

o rw h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

A LA N E. H I G H ER S, P. J
. , W
. S.