# F I L E D M ay 5, 1999 C eci l C r o w son , Jr . A p p e l l a t e C o u r tC l e r k I N THE CO U R T OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT J ACK S O N W I L L I E P ERRY, ) ) P l a i n t i f f/ A ppel l ant , ) Laud e r dal e C i r cui tN o . 5033

) VS. ) A p p eal N o . 02A01- 9812- C V - 00369 ) R O BER T CO NLEY, e ta l , ) ) D e f endant s /

A ppel l ees. ) A P P E AL FRO M THE C I R C U I T CO U R T O F LAUD E R D ALE C O U N T Y

AT RI P L EY, TENNESSEE THE HO N O RABLE J O SEPH H. W A L KER, J U D G E

W I L L I E P E R R Y , pr o se H enni ng, Tennessee PAUL G. SUMM ERS A t t o r ney G ener a l and R epo r t e r M I CHAEL

E.M O O R E S o l i c i t o r G ener a l SOHNI A W . HONG Assi s t ant A

t t o r ney G ener a l N ashvi l l e , Tennessee A t t o r neys

f o r A ppel l ees

A F F I R M ED I N PART

, REV ERS ED I N PART , AND REM AND E D

ALAN E. HI G HER S , J . CONCUR: DAVI D R. F ARMER, J . H O L L YK I R B YLI L L A R D , J. W illie P e r ry (“ P e r ry ”

or “ A ppel l ant ” ) appeal s t he j udgm entof t he t r i a l cour tgrant i n g2

sum m a r y j u d g m e n t t o A p p e l l e e s R o b e r tC o n l ey, et al . ( “ A p p e l l e e s ” ) . I . Fac t ual and Pr ocedur a l H i s to r y P e rry i s an i n m a t e l a wf u l l y i n t he cus t o d y of t he Tennessee Depar t m entof C o r r e c tio n (T D O C ). A t th e t i m e of t he event s giv i ng r i se t

o t h i s l a w sui t , P e r ry was i ncar cer a t e d atW est T e n n e ssee H i g h S ecu r i t y F aci l i t y( W T H S F ) i n H enni ng, Tennessee. Thi s case i nvolves

P e r ry ’ s al l egat i ons t hatcer t a i n W T H S F em p l oyees , nam e l y Rober t C onl ey, Tony Par ker , B e r nar d B ennet t , C har l e s P i phus, R obertH enry , S cot tW i l son, V i c ki e K i r b yand K ennet h B oyd, unl a wf u l l y c onver t ed, det a i ned, and d a m aged P e r ry ’ s 13 i nch col o r t e l evi s i on set . P e r ry was i s s ued t w o di s c i p l i nary i n f r act i ons i n A ugust of 1997. P e r ry was m oved t o U n i t 2 on segr

egat i on pendi ng t he di s c i p l i nary hear i ng. AW T H S F di s c i p l i nary boar d conduc t e d a hear i ng and f ound P e r ry gui l t y as char ged on August 19, 1997. P e r ry ’ s puni shm entw as t h i rt y day s punit i v e

segr egat i on f o r

each char ge. P e r ryw as al so pl aced o n ad m i n i s t r a t i ve se g r e g a t i o n du e t o h i s di sci p l i n a ry f i n d i n g s . P e r ry ’ s seg r e g a t i o n w as t o end on O c tober

18, 1997. S i nce i n m a t es ar

e notper m i t t ed t o have t e l evi s i ons whi l e t hey ar e i n segr egat i on, I n m a t e R e l a t i ons Coor d i nat o r , K ennet h B oyd (“ B oyd”) , t ook away P e r ry ’ s te l evi s i on f r o m h i m and pl aced it i n t he st o r age room f o r

U n i t2. P e r ry was notgi ven a Per sonalP r opert y S t o r age For m . O n A ugust 25, 1997, P e r ry was m oved t o U n i t6 t o ser

ve the r e m a i nder

of h i s segr egat i o n t i m e . P e r ry al l eges t hatB oyd r e f used t o send hi s te l evi s i on t o U n i t6 w i t h P e rry t o be st o r ed i n U n i t 6' s st o r a g e r o o m . P e r ry cl a i m s t h a tat t h i s t i m e B oyd t o l d P e r ry h e cou l d f o r g e t ab o u t ge t t i n g hi s t e l evi s i o n ba ck. P e rry w as takenof f puni t i ve segr egat i on i n m i d - O c tober and he r equest

ed t he r e t u r n o f hi s te l evi s i on set . C o r r ect i on C o r por a l , V i c ki e K i r by (“ K i r by”) , sear ched t he U n i t2 st

o r age r oom and w as not

abl e t o l ocate t he t e l evi s i on. P e r rysubm i t t ed sev e r a l r equest

s by i n m a t e3

r e q u e s t f o r m t o t he uni t m anagem entt eam and a l e t t e r t o t he w a r den c oncern i ng t h e w her eabout s of hi s te l evi s i on set and t he r e p r i salP e r ry was r eceiv i ng as a r esult of a l a w sui t he had pr evi ously f i l ed. A l l r equest s by P e r ry went unanswer ed.
P e rry asse rt s t haton O c tober 25, 1997, I n m a t e R e l a t i ons Coor d i nat o r , S cot tW i l son and Co r r e c tio n a l C ounsel , B e r nar d B ennet t , cam e t o hi s c e l l door and t o l d P e r ry t

o st o p t u r n i n g i n i n m a t e I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t s t o t he U n i tTeam aski ng t he w her eabout s of hi s t e l e v i s i o n , because t he t e l evi s i on w as not goi ng t o be r e t u r ned si nce itnow bel onged t o W THSFem p l oyees . P e r ry al so a sser t s t hatB oyd i n f o r m ed hi m t hathi s te l evi s i on w oul d notbe gi ven back to hi m because he di d notneed i tand f o r P e r ry t o “ buy another

t e l evi s i o n because W T H S F has i t now . ” O n N ovem ber 20, 1997, P e r ryf i l ed suitf o r t he r e t u r n of hi s t e l e v i s i o n set

and/o r dam ages f

o r t he w r ongf u l conv

e r s i o n and det ent i on ofhi s te l evi s i o n set . W h i l e P e r r

y w as i n se g r e g a t i o n , hi s t e l evi s i o n set w as so m e h o w acq u i r e d by a n o t h e r i n m a t e , H a rvey

A l exander. O n O c tober 6, 1997, W T H S F of f i c i a l s c onf i s c a t ed a t e l evi s i o n fro m i n m a t e A l exander w ho w as s ubsequentl y t r ansfe r r ed t o B r ushy M ount a i n S t a t e P eni t ent i a ryi n P e t r os, Tennessee. The i den tifi c a t i on m a r k s on t he t e l evi s i on had been a l t e r e d an d K i r by c

oul d noti dent i f y the ow ner of t he t e l evi s i on att hatt i m e . W hen P e r ry r equest e d t he r e t u r n of hi s te l evi s i on i n m i d - O c tober , 1997, K i r by sear c h ed t he U n i t 2 s to r age room and coul d notl ocate t he t e l evi s i on. A tsom e l a t e r

dat e , K i r by was i n f o r m ed by an I n m a t e R e l a t i ons Coor d i nat o r t hat i n m a t e A l exander

m ay hav

e posse sse d P e r ry ’ s te l evi s i on. K i r by c a l l ed B r ushy

M ount a i n S t a t e P eni t e n t i a r y( B M S P ) and i nves t i gat ed as t

o w het her

A l exander

had t aken t h e t e l e v i s i o n to

th a t i n s t i t u t i o n . K i r b y l ear ned t hatA l exander di d nothave the t e l evi s i on at B M SP.O n D ecem ber

4, 1997 , a

f t e r P e rry

i n i t i a t e d th i s a c t i o n i n C i r c u i t C o u rt, K i r b y sear chedt he pr opert y r

oom and l ooked t h r ough a she lf w i t h t e l evi s i ons t hatw e r e t o be4

sent t o chari t y . O n t he bot t o m of one t e l evi s i o n set , K i r by m ade outP e r ry ’ s i n i t i a l s and T D O C num ber . The t e l evi s i on w as t he one conf i s c a t ed f r o m i n m a t e A l exander bef o r e he w as t r ansfe r r ed t o B M S P . The t e l evi s i on w as r e t u r ned t o P e r ry thatsam e day. U pon re cei v i n g t h e t e l evi s i o n on D ece m b e r 4, 19 9 7 , P e r ry i nsp ect e d i tan d f o u n d t hati t had been cr

ack ed i n sev e r a l pl aces , t he speak

e r on t he t e l evi s i on w a s br oken and P e rry ’ s TD O C num berh ad been t aken of f of i t . P e r ry asser

t s t hatt he t e l evi s i on w as i n good con d i t i o n w i t h n o t h i n g br oke n o r scr a t che d w h e n i tw as co n f i scat e d by B oyd at t h e begi nni ng ofhi s seg r e g a t i o n t i m e . P e r ry i m m e d i a t e l y f i l e d an em e r g e ncy r e q u e s t fo r m to have a pr

i son em p l oyee

t ake back t he t e l evi s i on because of t he dam age done t o i t . The t e l e v i s i o n w as pi c k

ed up t hatday.P e r ry senta r equest t o K i r by ex

p l a i n i ng t hathe w ant e d her t o hol d t he t e l evi s i on unt i l i t w a s f o r m a l l y acknowl edged t hatt he dam age wa s done t o t he t e l evi s i on w h i l e outof P e r ry ’ s c ont r o l . O n D ecem ber

4, 1997, P e r ry f i l ed a gr i evanc e conc e r n i ng t he dam age done t o t h e t e l e v i s i o n w h i l e i n t he safekeepi ng oft he pr i son. O n D ecem ber 18, 1 997, P e r r ys e n t a r equest f o r m t o K i r by i n f o r m i ng her t hathi s gr i evanc

e had been r esolved and r equesti n g t h e r e t u r n of hi s te l evi s i on. P e r ry r eceived no

r esponse . O n D ecem ber 22, 1997, P e r ry sent a r equest

t o t he W a r den w ho f o rw a r ded i t to K irb y . K i r by s t a t ed t hatt he t e l evi s i on w a s p l acedw i t h her

by Per ry and it w as bei ng hel d i n t he pr opert y r oom unt i l t he l a w sui t i s set t l ed. P e r ry al l e g es t h a t he w as t o l d b y K i r by, B oyd, W a r den R obertC onl ey, and U n i t M anager R obert H enry thatif h e w o u l d d r o p t h e l a w sui t , he w o u l d g e t hi s t e l evi s i o n ba c k buti f t he l a w sui t w as not dr opped, he w oul d never see hi s te l evi s i on agai n . P e rry contends t hathe w as t o l d by Ki r by thatBo y d w as t he per son who scr a t ched P e rry ’ s nam e and TD O C num ber of f of P e r ry ’ s te l evi s i o n set and t hatB oyd was t he person w h o cr ack ed t he t e l evi s i on and gave i taw ay t o anot her

i n m a t e f o r

hi s own per sonaluse. P e rry contends t haton D ecem ber 22, 1997, Bo y d i n f o r m ed hi m t hatt he pr opert y r oom per sonneldam aged t h e t e l evi s i on and t ook P e r ry ’ s TD O C num ber of f of i tand t hatP e r ry w oul d notr eceive hi s te l evi s i on back because he f i l ed t h i s l a w suit .5

O n Januar

y 26,1998, P e r ry f i l ed an am ended com p l a i n tf o r t he dam age done t o hi s t e l e v i s i o n w h i l e i n t he pr i son’ s sa f ekeepi ng, and advanc ed cl a i m s of

r e t a l i a t i o n an d e xt o rtio n by p r i son of

f i c i a l s . O n Febr uary 9,1998, P e r ry ’ s te l evi s i on set w as r e t u r ned t o h i m . O n Ap r i l 29, 1998, A ppel l ees m oved f o r sum m a r y j u d g m e n tt o g e t h e r w i t h a f f i d a v i t s and a st a t e m entof m a t e r i a l and undi s p u t ed f acts . The t r i a l cour tadopt ed t he st

a t e m ent o f m a t e r i a l and undi sputed f act s and t he l e gal anal y s i s se tf o rt h i n t he m e m o r andum i n suppor t of t he m o t i on f o r

sum m a ry j udgm entand grant ed sum m a ryj udgm entt o A ppel l ees on S ept e m ber

21, 1998. Thi s appealby Per ry f o l l o w ed.
I I . S t and a r d o fR evi e w A c c o r d i n g t o R u l e 5 6 . 0 3 , sum m a r y j u d g m e n ti s t o b e g r a n t e d i f t h e " p l e a d i n g s , deposit i ons, answer s t

o i n t e r r ogat o r i es, and adm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oget her w i t h t he af f i davit s , i f any,show t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m a t e r i a l f act

and t hatt he m ovi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a m a t t e r of l a w . " I n r u l i ng on a m o t i on f o r sum m a ry j udgm ent , t he t r i a l cour tand t he C ourtof A ppeal s m ust cons i der

t he m a t t e r

i n t he sam e m anner

as a m o t i on f o r

a di r ected ver

d i c t m ade at t h e cl ose of

t he pl a i n t i f f ’ s pr

oof , i . e . , al l t he evi denc e m ust be vi e w e d i n t h e l i g h tm ost f a vor abl e t o t he opponent . I t i s only when t her e i s no di sputed i s s ue ofm a t e r i a l f act t hat a sum m a ry j udgm entshoul d be grant ed by the t r i a l cour t and sus

t a i ned by the C ourt of A ppeal s . G r aves

v.A nchor

W i r e C o r p . of Tennessee , 692 S . W . 2d 420 ( Tenn. A pp. 1985) ; B ennet t v.M i d - S out h Ter m i nal s Co r p . , 660 S . W . 2d 799 ( Tenn. A pp. 1983) . W hen t h e pa rt y see k i n g sum m a r y j u dgm e n tm akes a pr oper l y s upport ed m o t i on, t h e bur den t hen shif t s to t he nonm ovi ng par t y t o set f o rt h speci f i cf act s , no tl e g a l con c l usi o n s , b yusi ng af f i davit s or

t he di s c over y m a t e r i a l s l i s ted i n R u l e 56. 03, e s tabl i shi ng t hatt her e1 I n Per r y ’s Am ended C o m p l a i n t , Per r y at t e m p t s t o br i ng t h i s act i on on hi s own behal f and on behal f o f “ o t her si m i l a r l y s i t uat ed. ” I n Appel l ees’m e m o r andum i n suppor t of sum m a r y j udgm ent , Appel l ees argue t hat Per r y l acked s t andi ng t o sue on beha l f of ot her i n m a t es s i m i l a r l y s i t uat ed. The t r i a l cour t adopt ed t h e r easoni n g f oun d i n A ppe l l ees’ m e m o r andum i n gr ant i ng sum m a r y j udgm ent . W h i l e Per r y does not appeart o appeal t h i s r u l i ng of t he t r i a l cour t , f o r cl a r i f i cat i on of i ssu es on re m and, w e hol d t hat t o t h e t r i a l cour t di d not e r r i n gr ant i ng Appel l ees’m o t i on f o r sum m a r y j udgm ent on t he i ssu e of st and i ng t o asse r t t h i r d pa r t y i n t e r est s . 6 a r e i ndeed di sputed, m a t e r i a l f act s cr eat i n g a genui ne i s s ue t hatneeds t o be r esolved by t he t r i e r of f act and t hata t r i a l i s t her e f o r e necessar y . B y r d v. H a l l , 847 S . W . 2d 208, 215 ( Tenn. 1993) . I n appeal s f r o m grant s of sum m a ry j udgm ent , t he C ourtof A ppeal s m ust deci d e w het her t he court bel o wcor r ect l y appl i ed R u l e 56. 03 and i n so doi ng, t he C ourtmu s tma k e a n ent i r e l y f r esh dete r m i nat i on because onl y ques t i ons of l a war e p r e s ent ed; no p r esum p t i o n of corr ect ness acc o m pani es t he t r i a l cour

t ’ s deci s i on. H ill v . C h a t t a n o o g a , 533 S . W . 2d 311( Tenn. A pp. 1975) . I I I . Pr opr i e t

y of Sum m a r

y J udgm ent
P e rry seek s dam ages f

o r t he i n j u r i e s t o hi s per

sonalpr opert yand f o r

t he conv e r s i o n and/o r w r ongf u l det ent i on ofhi s pr opert y . 1 I n A ppel l ees’m e m o r andum i n suppor t of s u mma ryj udgm e n t , A ppel l ees ar gue t hat1) P e r ry f

a i l ed t o sta t e a cl a i m f o r E i ght h A m endm entvi o l a t i ons; 2) P e r ry f a i l ed t o sta t e a cl a i m f o re x t o rt i on, conv

e r s i on, or r e t a l i a t i on; and 3) D e f endant s ar e absol u t e l y i m m une f r o m l i abi l i t y f o r act s or om i s s i ons w ith i n t he sc

ope oft hei r

of f i ce or

em p l oym ent . The t r i a l cou rtadopt ed t he A ppel l ees’ r easoni ng i n i t s or

der grant i ng sum m a ry j udgm ent . W e agr ee w i t h t he t r i a l cour tt hatsum m a ry j udgm entw as pr oper as to any Ei ght h A m endm entcl a i m s adv anced by P e r ry , al t hough i ti s not cl ear f r o m P e r ry ’ s c

o m p l a i n tt hat such cons

t i t u t i onal cl a i m s wer e advanc ed. W e w oul d al s o

agr ee t hatsum m a ry j udgm ent w a s pr oper

t o t he ext

entt hatP e r ry sought t o r ecov e rf o r hi s “ext o rt i on” and “ r e t a l i a t i on” c l a i m s . W e know of no st a t u t o ry or

com m on l a waut hor i t y -- exc epti n sta t es wher e sta t u t e s p r ovi d e f o r

civ i l penal t i es fo r

t he cri m e of ext

o rt i on- - w h i ch woul d al l o wP e r ry t o r ecov e r d a m a g es f o r “ ext o r t i o n ” or “ r e t a l i a t i o n ” un d e r t h e se f act s .7

C onst r u i n g P e rry ’ s p r o se com p l a i n tbr oad l y , P e r ry al l eges a cl a i m f o r t h e c o nver s i o n and/o r

w r ongf u l det ent i on ofhi s pr opert y and f

o r t he i n j u r i es t

o hi s pr o p e rty . These cl a i m s ar

e r ecogni zabl e under

Tennessee l a w . S e e

Tenn. C ode A nn. §28- 3 - 1 0 5 ( A c tio n s f o r

i n j u r i es t o per sonalor

r eal pr opert y s hal l be com m enced wi t h i n t h r e e (3 ) year s fro m t he acc r u i ng oft he cause of act i on) ; S ee al so B e a t y v. M c G r a w 1998 W L 855516, * 7 ( Tenn. A pp. 1998) ( dam ages f o r t he w r ongf u l det ent i on ofpr opert y m ay be m easur ed ei t her b yt he f a i r

m a r ket r ent a l val ue oft he pr opert y f o r t he per i o d of det ent i on, or by t he netpr o f i t l ost dur i ng t he det ent i on per i od) . A ppel l ees ar gue t hatP e r ry f a i l ed t o sta t e a cl a i m fo r c o n ver s i on as t he t e l evi s i o n w a s notappr opr i a t ed f o r A ppel l ees’ow n use and benefi t . H o w ever, a conv e r s i on, i n t h e sense of t he l a wof t r over, cons i s ts eit her i n t he appr opr i a t i on oft he pr opert y of anot her , o r i n i t s des

t r uct i on, or

i n exer c i s i ng dom i n i on over

i ti n def i ance of

t h e ow ner ’ s ri ght , or

i n w i t hhol d i n g possess i on f r o m hi m under an adver

se cl a i m t o t i t l e . A . J . R oach & C o . v.Tur k , 5 6 Tenn. 708, 715- 16 ( 1872) . Aconv e r s i on does not

depend on t he m anual t aki ng oft h e t h i ng i n questi on and i t i s not necessar

y thati tbe shown t hatdef endanthas appl i ed i t t o h i s ow n use. The t est

i s whet her

one exer

c i ses do m i n i o n over

i ti n excl usi on ofor

i n def i ance of pl a i n t i f f ’ s r i g h t s . S chwar t z v. H ear n , 2 Tenn. C i v . A pp. 666, 674 ( H i ggi ns 1912) . I t h as been hel d t hatw her e t her e i s a c onver s i on ofanot her ’ s pr

opert y iti s no

t necessar

yt o show t hatt h e one conv e rt i ng t he pr opert y r

eceived t he benef i tof i t , si nce t h e one conv

e rt i ng t he pr opert y woul d be l i abl e t o t he ow ner eveni f t he pr o p e rty

w e r e dest r oyed or

i f he m ade i t poss i b l e f o r anot her t o enj oy the benef i t s t her eof . I vey v. U . S . , 8 8 F. S upp. 6 ( D . C . Tenn. 1950) . P e r ry al l eges thatA ppel l ees ex e r c i sed dom i n i o n over

hi s p r opert yi n def i ance of

hi s ri ght . P e r ry al so al l eges hi s pr opert y was dam aged w h i l e i n t h e cont r o l of A ppel l ees. W i t h r e g a r d t o d a m a g es f o r t h e w r o n g f u l de t e n t i o n of hi s pr o p e r t y , w e f eel i t is poss i b l e t hatt he t r i a l cour t m i sunder

s tood t he f act

s r egard i ng t he det ent i on ofP e r r y ’ s t e l evi s i on. I n t he or der

grant i ng sum m a ry j udgm ent , t h e t r i a l cour tnot ed t hatP e r ry f i l ed a8

g r i eva nce conc

e r n i ng hi s te l evi s i on and h i s te l e v i s i o n w as r e t u r ned t o hi m t he sam e day h e f i l ed t he gr i evanc

e . B ased upon our

r eadi ng ofth e fa c t s inth i s m a tte r, th i s

in t e r p r e t a tio n by the t r i a l cour

t over s i m p l i f i es t he f act

s pr esented.
B egi nni n g i n m i d - O c tober , P e r ryf i l ed sev e r a l r equest

s fo r t he r e t u r n ofhi s te l evi s i o n set , and hi s r

equest s went unanswer ed. O n D ecem ber 4, 1997, af t e r

t h i s l a w sui tw as f i l e d b yP e rry , h i s te l e v i s i o n w as l ocated on a “ chari t y ” shelf i n t he pr opert y r

oom of t he pr i son and r e t u r ned t o P e r ry . I t appears t hathi s te l evi s i on w as i n t he poss ess i on ofanot her i n m a t e dur i ng a por

t i on oft he t i m e t hati tw as out of P e r ry ’ s c

ont r o l . W hen t he t e l evi s i on set w as r e t u r ned to

P e rry o n D ecem ber

4, 1997, P e r ry noti ced dam age t o t he t e l evi s i on and ask ed t hatt he t e l evi s i on be r e t u r ned t o t he pr opert y r oom . P e rry r equest ed t he t e l evi s i on b e h e l d b y t h e pr o p e r t y ro o m un t i l a p r i son gr i eva nce p r ocedur

e w as c o m p l e t ed. P e r ry asser t s he di d t h i s to avoi d any al l egat i ons t hatt h e dam age to t he t e l evi s i on occu r r ed w h i l e t he t e l evi s i on w as i n hi s c ont r o l . H i s gr

i evanc e w a s conc l uded w i t h a f i ndi ng t hatm onet a ry c o m pen s a t i on f o r

pr opert y l oss

i s a m a t t e r i nappr opr i a t e t o t he gr i evanc e pr ocedur

e . A fte r t h i s di spos i t i on ofhi s gr i eva nce , P e r ry m a d e se ver a l do cum e n t e d r e q u e s t s fo r t h e r e t u r n of hi s te l evi s i on and t he t e l evi s i on w a s notr e t u r ned t o hi m . P e r ry was i n f o r m e d t h e t e l evi s i on w oul d notbe r e t u r ned t o hi m unt i l hi s l a w suitw as c o m p l e t ed. O n Januar

y 26, 1998, P e r ry f i l ed an am ended com p l a i n tf o r dam ages f

o r t he i n j u r i es t

o hi s pr opert y and t h e conv e r s i o n an d / o r w r o n g f u l de t e n t i o n of hi s pr o p e r t y . P e r ry al so a sser t e d cl a i m s of r e t a l i a t i o n and ext

o rt i on. O n Januar

y 30,1998, P e r ry f i l ed anot her gr i evanc

e f o r t he r e t u r n o f hi s te l evi s i on and i t w as ult i m a t e l y r e t u r ned t o h i m , on Febr uary 9,1998. To say that P e rry f i l ed a gr i evanc

e and hi s te l evi s i on w as r e t u r ned t he sam e day s i gni f i cant l yover l ooks o t her event s t hatt r anspi r ed.
W h ile s t a

t e o ffi c e r s and em p l oyees ar e absol u t e l y i m m une f r o m l i abi l i t y f o r act s or o m i s s i ons w i t h i n t he sc

ope oft hei r

of f i ce or em p l oym ent , t hey ar

e noti m m une f r o m l i abi l i t y9

f o r w i l l f u l , m a l i c i ous, or

cri m i nal act

s or om i s s i ons or

f o r act s or om i s s i ons done fo r per s onal ga i n . T e n n . C o d e . A n n . 9- 8 - 3 0 7 ( h ) . A ccor d i n g l y , i f t h e act s or om i s s i ons of A ppel l ees i n det a i n i ng, dam agi ng, and exer c i s i ng dom i n i on over

P e r ry ’ s pr

opert ywe r e w illfu l , m a l i c i ous, or

cri m i nal , A ppel l ees c

oul d be l i abl e f o r

dam ages f

o r t he conv

e r s i o n a n d / o r w r o n g f u l de t e n t i o n of P e r ry ’ s pr o p e r t y an d f o r an y ha r m t o P e r ry ’ s pr o p e r t y . P e rry al l e g es t h a t hi s t e l evi s i o n w as co nve rt e d an d / o r de t a i n e d b y pr i son of f i c i a l s i n r e t a l i a t i on f o r

pr evi ous l a w sui t s f i l ed by Per ry and used as l eve r age i n an at t e m p tt o coer c e P e r ry t o dr op t h i s l a w sui t . P e r ry c ont ends t hathi s TD O C num ber w as sc r a t ched of

f o f h i s te l e v i s i o n by

A p p e l l e e s an d h i s t e l evi s i o n w as g i ven t o a n o t h e r i n m a t e b y A p p e l l e e s . P e rry f u r t h e r al l e g es i nci d e n t s i n w h i c h A ppel l ees i n f o r m ed P e r ry hi s t e l evi s i on w oul d not b e re t u r n ed t o hi m and i nst r ucted P e r ry t o st op f i l i ng r equest

s fo r t he r e t u r n of h i s t e l evi s i on, i ncl udi ng one i nci dentw her e r aci a l sl u r s wer e used t o w a r d s P e r ry by

A ppel l e e B oyd. P e r ry ’ s cl a i m s of ext o rt i on and r e t a l i a t i on, w h i l e not i ndependent l y ac t i onabl e , ar e r e l evant t o t he w i l l f u l , m a l i c i ous, or cri m i nal nat u r e of t he act s and om i s s i ons of

A ppel l ees. For t he r easons

not ed h e r e i nabove, w e f i nd t hatt her e ar e genui ne i s s ues of m a t e r i a l f act

w h i ch s houl d be det e r m i ned i n t he t r i a l cour t . W e hol d t hatt he t r i a l cour ter r e d i n grant i ng sum m a ryj udgm enton t he i s s ues of conv e r s i on ofpr opert y , w r ongf u l det ent i o n o f pr opert y , and i n j u ry t o pr opert y .

I V . C oncl usi o n The j udgm entof t he t r i a l cour ti s her eby af f i r m ed i n part , r ever

sed i n part , and r e m anded fo r

f u rt her pr oceedi ngs c

onsi s tentw i t h t h i s opi n i on. C ost s of t h i s appealar e t axed t o A ppel l ees, f o r

w h i ch ex

ecut i on m ay i s s ue i f necessar y .

H I G HER S , J .1 0

CONCUR:

F ARMER, J .

L I LLA R D , J.