1

FILED

October 2, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

FI RST TENNESSEE BANK NATI ONAL ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9503- CH- 00102

ASSOCI ATI ON, ) KNOX COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e , )

)

)

)

)

)

v. ) HONORABLE SHARON BELL,

) CHANCELLOR

)

)

)

)

)

C. T. RESORTS COMPANY, 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 ee ha s f i l e d a pe t i t i on f or r e hear i ng.

The pe tition ba s i c a lly a r gue s two poi nt s : f i r s t, tha t the

undi s put 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 cl a i ms of mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, and he nce wa i ve d t he m;

a nd 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

Modi 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 of

Success or Tr us t ee. "

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

t he 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
2

de f e nda 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 he y

di 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 to the a lle ge d mi s r e pr e s e nt a tions . We a r e s till " on the

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

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

a r e s pa r s e . We cannot s a y t ha t t he f act s be f or e us conc l us i ve l y

s how tha t Fi r s t Te nne s s e e is e ntitle d to a judgme nt a s a ma tte r

of 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 ol ut 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. We 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

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 ue

of f r a ud and i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o i t ar e r a r e l y s us cept i bl e t o

r e s ol ut i on by s umma r y j udgme nt . See Long v . St at e Fi r e &

Cas ual t y Co. , 510 S. W. 2d 517, 519 ( Te nn. App. 1974) .

Ma 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

ha ve be 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.

The 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 he

wa i ve 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 of 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

ge nui ne i s s ue s of f a c t s . See By r d v. Hal l , 847 S. W. 2d 208, 210

( Te nn. 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 ve 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 ua l ma t t ers . " )

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 hear i ng, we be l i e ve we ar e cor r ect i n our i nt e r pr e t a t i on of t he

r e l eas e l a ngua ge i n t he pa r t i e s ' agr eeme nt .
3

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 os t

of t he appe l l ee.

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 .

_____________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .