F IL ED

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 t C 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 t N o . 5033

)

VS. ) A p p eal N o . 02A 01- 9812- C V - 00369

)

R O BER T CO NLEY, e t a 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

A ssi s t ant A t t o r ney G ener a l

N ashv i 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 Y K I R B Y LI L L A R D , J.

W illie P e r r y ( “ P e r r y ” or “ A ppel l ant ” ) appeal s t he j udgm ent of t he t r i a l cour t gr ant i n g
2

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 t C o n l ey, et al . ( “ A p p e l l e e s ” ) .

I . Fac t ual and Pr oce dur a l H i s t o r y

P e rry i s an i n m a t e l a w f u l l y i n t he cus t o d y of t he Tennessee Depar t m ent of

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 gi v i ng r i se t o t h i s l a w sui t , P e r r y was

i ncar cer a t e d at W 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 cas e i nvol ves P e r r y ’ s al l egat i ons t hat cer 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 ober t H enr y , S cot t W i l son, V i c k i e

K i r b y and K ennet h B oyd, unl a w f u l l y c onver t ed, det a i ned, and d a m aged P e r r y ’ s 13 i nch

col o r t e l evi s i on set .

P e r r y was i s s ued t w o di s c i p l i nar y i n f r act i ons i n A ugust of 1997. P e r r y 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 nar y hear i ng. A W T H S F di s c i p l i nar y boar d

conduc t e d a hear i ng and f ound P e r r y gui l t y as char ged on August 19, 1997. P e r r y ’ s

puni shm ent w as t h i r t y day s puni t i v e segr egat i on f o r each c har ge. P e r r y w 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 r y f i n d i n g s . P e r r y ’ s seg r e g a t i o n w as t o

end on O c t ober 18, 1997.

S i nce i n m a t es ar e not per 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 r y ’ s t e l evi s i on f r o m

h i m and pl aced i t i n t he st o r age r oom f o r U n i t 2. P e r r y was not gi ven a Per sonal P r oper t y

S t o r age For m . O n A ugust 25, 1997, P e r r y was m oved t o U n i t 6 t o ser ve t he r e m a i nder of

h i s segr egat i o n t i m e . P e r r y al l eges t hat B oyd r e f used t o send hi s t e l evi s i on t o U n i t 6 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 r y cl a i m s t h a t at t h i s t i m e B oyd t o l d P e r r y

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 t aken of f puni t i ve s egr egat i on i n m i d - O c t ober and he r equest ed t he r e t u r n

o f hi s t e l evi s i on set . C o r r ect i on C o r por a l , V i c k i e K i r by ( “ K i r by” ) , sear ched t he U n i t 2 st o r age

r oom and w as not abl e t o l ocat e t he t e l evi s i on. P e r r y subm i t t ed sev e r a l r equest s by i n m a t e
3

r e q u e s t f o r m t o t he uni t m anagem ent t eam and a l e t t e r t o t he w a r den c oncer n i ng t h e

w her eabout s of hi s t e l evi s i on set and t he r e p r i sal P e r r y was r ecei v i ng as a r esul t of a

l a w sui t he had pr evi ousl y f i l ed. A l l r equest s by P e r r y went unanswer ed.

P e rry ass e r t s t hat on O c t ober 25, 1997, I n m a t e R e l a t i ons Coor d i nat o r , S cot t W 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 r y 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 t Team ask i ng t he w her eabout s of hi s

t e l e v i s i o n , becaus e 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 i t now bel onged t o

W THSF em p l oyees . P e r r y al so a sser t s t hat B oyd i n f o r m ed hi m t hat hi s t e l evi s i on w oul d

not be gi ven bac k t o hi m becaus e he di d not need i t and f o r P e r r y t o “ buy anot her t e l evi s i o n

becaus e W T H S F has i t now . ” O n N ovem ber 20, 1997, P e r r y f i l ed sui t f 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 of hi s t e 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 r vey A l exander . O n O c t ober 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 ubsequent l y t r ansf e r r ed t o B r ushy M ount a i n S t a t e

P eni t ent i a r y i 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 not i dent i f y t he ow ner of t he t e l evi s i on at t hat t i m e . W hen P e r r y

r equest e d t he r e t u r n of hi s t e l evi s i on i n m i d - O c t ober , 1997, K i r by s ear c h ed t he U n i t 2

s t o r age r oom and coul d not l ocat e t he t e l evi s i on.

A t som 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 poss e sse d P e r r y ’ s t e 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 hat A l exander di d not have t he 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 ched t he pr oper t 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 hat w e r e t o be
4

sent t o char i 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 out P e r r y ’ 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 ansf e 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 r y t hat sam 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 r y i nsp ect e d i t an d f o u n d

t hat i 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 ber h ad been t aken of f of i t . P e r r y as ser t s t hat t 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 t w as co n f i scat e d by B oyd at t h e

begi nni ng of hi s seg r e g a t i o n t i m e . P e r r y 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 bac k t he t e l evi s i on becaus e 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 hat day. P e r r y s ent a r equest t o K i r by ex p l a i n i ng t hat he 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 ac knowl edged t hat t he dam age w a s done t o

t he t e l evi s i on w h i l e out of P e r r y ’ s c ont r o l .

O n D ecem ber 4, 1997, P e r r y 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 saf ekeepi ng of t he pr i son. O n D ecem ber 18, 1 997, P e r r y s 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 hat hi s gr i evanc e had been r esol ved and r equest i n g

t h e r e t u r n of hi s t e l evi s i on. P e r r y r ecei ved no r espons e . O n D ecem ber 22, 1997, P e r r y s ent

a r equest t o t he W a r den w ho f o r w a r ded i t to K irb y . K i r by s t a t ed t hat t he t e l evi s i on w a s

p l aced w i t h her by Per r y and i t w as bei ng hel d i n t he pr oper t y r oom unt i l t he l a w sui t i s

set t l ed. P e r r y 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 ober t C onl ey, and U n i t

M anager R ober t H enr y t hat if 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

but i f t he l a w sui t w as not dr opped, he w oul d never see hi s t e l evi s i on agai n .

P e rry cont ends t hat he w as t o l d by Ki r by t hat Bo 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 r y ’ s t e l evi s i o n set and t hat B oyd was t he per son

w h o cr ack ed t he t e l evi s i on and gav e i t aw ay t o anot her i n m a t e f o r hi s own per sonal use.

P e rry cont ends t hat on D ecem ber 22, 1997, Bo y d i n f o r m ed hi m t hat t he pr oper t y r oom

per sonnel dam aged t h e t e l evi s i on and t ook P e r r y ’ s TD O C num ber of f of i t and t hat P e r r y

w oul d not r ecei ve hi s t e l evi s i on back becaus e he f i l ed t h i s l a w sui t .
5

O n Januar y 26, 1998, P e r r y f i l ed an am ended com p l a i n t f 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 s a 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 x t o rtio n by p r i son of f i c i a l s . O n Febr uar y 9, 1998, P e r r y ’ s t e 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 t t 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 ent of m a t e r i a l and undi s p u t ed f act s . The t r i a l cour t adopt ed t he st a t e m ent

o f m a t e r i a l and undi sput ed f act s and t he l e gal anal y s i s s e t f o r t 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 r y j udgm ent and gr ant ed sum m a r y j udgm ent t o A ppel l ees

on S ept e m ber 21, 1998. Thi s appeal by Per r y f o l l o w ed.

I I . S t and a r d o f R 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 t i 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 ,

deposi t 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 davi t s ,

i f any, show t hat t 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 hat t he m ovi ng par t y

i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent as 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 r y j udgm ent , t he t r i a l cour t and t he C our t of 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 ect ed 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 t m ost

f a vor abl e t o t he opponent . I t i s onl y when t her e i s no di sput ed i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f act t hat

a sum m a r y j udgm ent shoul d be gr ant ed by t he t r i a l cour t and sus t a i ned by t he C our t 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 C o r p . , 660 S . W . 2d 799 ( Tenn. A pp. 1983) .

W hen t h e pa r t y see k i n g sum m a r y j u dgm e n t m akes a pr oper l y s uppor t ed m o t i on, t h e

bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he nonm ovi ng par t y t o set f o r t h spec i f i c f act s , no t l e g a l con c l usi o n s ,

b y usi ng af f i davi t s or t he di s c over y m a t e r i a l s l i s t ed i n R u l e 56. 03, e s t abl i shi ng t hat t her e
1

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 ar gue

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 doe s not appear t 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 r e 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 sput ed, m a t e r i a l f act s cr eat i n g a genui ne i s s ue t hat needs t o be r esol ved by

t he t r i e r of f act and t hat a t r i a l i s t her e f o r e neces sar 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 gr ant s of sum m a r y j udgm ent , t he C our t of A ppeal s m ust deci d e

w het her t he cour t bel o w cor r ect l y appl i ed R u l e 56. 03 and i n so doi ng, t he C our t mu s t ma k e

a n ent i r e l y f r esh det e r m i nat i on becaus e onl y ques t i ons of l a w ar e p r e s ent ed; no

p r esum p t i o n of cor r ect ness acc o m pani es t he t r i a l cour t ’ s dec i 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 sonal pr oper t y and f o r t he conv e r s i o n

and/ o r w r ongf u l det ent i on of hi s pr oper t y .

1

 I n A ppel l ees’ m e m o r andum i n suppor t of

s u mma r y j udgm e n t , A ppel l ees ar gue t hat 1) P e r r y f a i l ed t o st a t e a cl a i m f o r E i ght h

A m endm ent vi o l a t i ons; 2) P e r r y f a i l ed t o st a t e a cl a i m f o r e x t o r t 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 of t hei r of f i ce or em p l oym ent . The t r i a l cou r t adopt ed t he A ppel l ees’

r easoni ng i n i t s or der gr ant i ng sum m a r y j udgm ent .

W e agr ee w i t h t he t r i a l cour t t hat sum m a r y j udgm ent w as pr oper as to any Ei ght h

A m endm ent cl a i m s adv anced by P e r r y , al t hough i t i s not cl ear f r o m P e r r y ’ s c o m p l a i n t t 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 hat sum m a r y j udgm ent

w a s pr oper t o t he ext ent t hat P e r r y s ought t o r ecov e r f o r hi s “ ext o r t 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 r y or com m on l a w aut hor i t y - - exc ept i n st a t es wher e st a t u t e s

p r ovi d e f o r ci v i l penal t i es f o r t he cr i m e of ext o r t i on- - w h i ch woul d al l o w P e r r y 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 t br oad l y , P e r r y al l eges a c l 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 of hi s pr oper t 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 sonal or r eal pr oper t 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 of t he caus e 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 of pr oper t y m ay be m easur ed ei t her

b y t he f a i r m a r ket r ent a l val ue of t he pr oper t y f o r t he per i o d of det ent i on, or by t he net pr 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 hat P e r r y f a i l ed t o st a 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 not appr opr i a t ed f o r A ppel l ees’ ow n use and benef i t . H o w ever , a conv e r s i on, i n t h e

sens e of t he l a w of t r over , cons i s t s ei t her i n t he appr opr i a t i on of t he pr oper t 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 t i n def i ance of t h e ow ner ’ s r i ght , or i n

w i t hhol d i n g poss ess i on f r o m hi m under an adver se c l 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) . A conv e r s i on does not depend on t he m anual t aki ng of t h e

t h i ng i n quest i on and i t i s not neces sar y t hat i t be shown t hat def endant has 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 t i n exc l usi on of or 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 hat w her e t her e i s a c onver s i on of anot her ’ s pr oper t y i t i s no t

neces sar y t o show t hat t h e one conv e r t i ng t he pr oper t y r ecei ved t he benef i t of i t , si nce t h e

one conv e r t i ng t he pr oper t y woul d be l i abl e t o t he ow ner even i 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 t he 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 r y al l eges t hat A ppel l ees ex e r c i sed dom i n i o n over hi s

p r oper t y i n def i ance of hi s r i ght . P e r r y al so al l eges hi s pr oper t 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 hat t he t r i a l cour t m i sunder s t ood t he f act s r egar d i ng t he det ent i on of P e r r y ’ s

t e l evi s i on. I n t he or der gr ant i ng sum m a r y j udgm ent , t h e t r i a l cour t not ed t hat P e r r y f i l ed a
8

g r i eva nce conc e r n i ng hi s t e 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 of th e fa c t s in th i s m a tte r, th i s in t e r p r e t a tio n

by t he t r i a l cour t over s i m p l i f i es t he f act s pr esent ed.

B egi nni n g i n m i d - O c t ober , P e r r y f i l ed sev e r a l r equest s f o r t he r e t u r n of hi s t e 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 t w as f i l e d

b y P e rry , h i s te l e v i s i o n w as l ocat ed on a “ char i t y ” shel f i n t he pr oper t y r oom of t he pr i son

and r e t u r ned t o P e r r y . I t appear s t hat hi s t e l evi s i on w as i n t he poss ess i on of anot her

i n m a t e dur i ng a por t i on of t he t i m e t hat i t w as out of P e r r y ’ 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 r y not i ced

dam age t o t he t e l evi s i on and ask ed t hat t he t e l evi s i on be r e t u r ned t o t he pr oper t 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 r o 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 r y as ser t s he di d t h i s t o avoi d any al l egat i ons t hat t h e

dam age to t he t e l evi s i on occ u 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 hat m onet a r y c o m pen s a t i on f o r pr oper t 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 of hi s gr i eva nce , P e r r y 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 t e l evi s i on and t he t e l evi s i on w a s not r e t u r ned t o hi m . P e r r y was i n f o r m e d

t h e t e l evi s i on w oul d not be r e t u r ned t o hi m unt i l hi s l a w sui t w as c o m p l e t ed. O n Januar y 26,

1998, P e r r y f i l ed an am ended com p l a i n t f o r dam ages f o r t he i n j u r i es t o hi s pr oper t 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 r y 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 r t i on. O n Januar y 30, 1998, P e r r y 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 t e l evi s i on and i t w as ul t i m a t e l y r e t u r ned t o h i m , on Febr uar y 9, 1998. To say t hat

P e rry f i l ed a gr i evanc e and hi s t e 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 y over l ooks

o t her event s t hat t 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 of t hei r of f i ce or em p l oym ent , t hey ar e not i m m une f r o m l i abi l i t y
9

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

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 r y ’ s pr oper t y we r e

w illfu l , m a l i c i ous, or cr i 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 r y ’ s pr o p e r t y an d f o r an y ha r m t o P e r r y ’ 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 r t 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 r y and used as l eve r age i n an at t e m p t t o

coer c e P e r r y t o dr op t h i s l a w sui t . P e r r y c ont ends t hat hi s TD O C num ber w as s c 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 r y 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 uct ed P e r r y t o st op f i l i ng r equest s f o 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 dent w her e r aci a l sl u r s wer e used t o w a r d s P e r r y by A ppel l e e

B oyd. P e r r y ’ s c l a i m s of ext o r t 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 cr i 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 hat t 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 hat t he t r i a l cour t er r e d

i n gr ant i ng sum m a r y j udgm ent on t he i s s ues of conv e r s i on of pr oper t y , w r ongf u l det ent i o n

o f pr oper t y , and i n j u r y t o pr oper t y .

I V . C oncl usi o n

The j udgm ent of t he t r i a l cour t i s her eby af f i r m ed i n par t , r ever sed i n par t , and

r e m anded fo r f u r t her pr oceedi ngs c onsi s t ent w i t h t h i s opi n i on. C ost s of t h i s appeal ar 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 neces sar y .

 

H I G HER S , J .
1 0

CONCUR:

 

F ARMER, J .

 

L I LLA R D , J.