M r
. Dem e r s a l s o s u bm i t t e d a n ot h e r a f f i da v i t s u pp or t i n g h i s op po s i t i on t o t h e de fe n da n t s ’ mo t i on for T e n n
. R. 1 C i v. P

. 1 1 sanc t i o ns. T ha t aff i d av i t p l ays no ro l e in m y ana l ysi s. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Ja nua ry 6, 200 4 S es sio n KEVI N DEMERS, ET AL 

### . v. WAL TER W HI TTE NBURG, ET AL 

### .

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Robertson County No. 9908 John H. Gasaw ay, III, Jud ge

No. M2003- 00184-COA-R 3-CV - F iled May 27, 2004

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R
. , P

. J

. , M

. S

. , co n cu rr i n g. Whil e I c on c ur wi th the de c isi on to af

fi rm the tr ia l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l of Mr . D e me rs ’s c la ims in this case, I write separ ately to point out tha t the outcome may very well have been dif fer ent had we e mploy ed the standa

rd customar ily

us ed to review order s g ranting a Te nn. R. Civ. P . 12.02(6) motion to di smiss. Howeve r, by using a ffidavits to oppose the motion to dismi ss, Mr. Demer s has su c c e e de d in con ve rt ing the Te nn . R. Civ. P. 12.0 2( 6) mot ion to a moti on fo r sum mary jud g me nt. Th us , r a the r tha n r e vie wi ng Mr . D e me rs ’s a me nd e d c omp la int to d e te rm ine wh e the r i t st a te s c la ims up on wh ic h r e lie f c a n b e g ra nte d, we ne e d only de te rm ine wh e the r, ba se d o n th e un dis pu te d f a c ts, the def endants ha ve demonstra ted that they are entitled to a judg ment as a ma tter of law

. I.
After the defendants filed their Tenn. R. Civ. P . 12.02(6) motion, Mr. Deme rs pre sented two a ff ida vit s to the tr ia l c ou rt

a lon g wi th h is o pp os iti on to the de fe nd a nts ’ m oti on
. Th ese af fi da vit s 1
wer e not attac hed to either the orig inal complaint or the propose d amende d complaint. There fore , they could not have be en dee med to have merg ed with the plea dings unde r the provisions of Te nn. R. C iv. P. 1 0. 03 . M r. De me rs e xplic itl y re lie d on the se a ff

ida vit s to oppo se the mot ion s to dis mis s du ri ng the he ari ng on the se mot ion s b oth in the tr ia l c ou rt a ndon app e a l. When matters outside the plea dings a re pr esented t o t h e t rial court in connection with the deter minatio n of a motion to dismis s for fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d, the trial court must t reat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgme nt unless it ex cludes the ou tsi de ma tte rs . T e nn . R. Civ . P. 12 .0 2; Pacific Eastern Corp. v. G u l f L i f e Hol ding Co. , 902 S.W .2d 946, 951 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p
. 1 9 9 5 ). The trial court did not exclude Mr. Deme rs’s twoIn i t s o rder grant i ng t he m o t i o n t o d i smi ss , t he t ri al co urt st at ed t hat i t had co nsi d ered “t he ent i re r eco rd i n t he 2

m a tter .” -2- aff idavits, and ther efor e, it should have c onverte d the motion to dis miss to a moti on for summary

2 judgme nt.
Whe n a mot ion to dis mis s is c on ve rt e d to a mot ion fo r su mma ry jud g me nt un de r T e nn . R. Civ . P. 12 .0 2, the c ou rt s mu st b e c are fu l no t to vio la te a lit ig a nt’ s rig ht to fa ir no tic e a nd a re a so na ble opport u n i t y t o p rese nt evidentiary materia ls made pertinent to a summary judgme nt motion. M r. Demer s’s lawy er, be ing a war e of the plain lang uag e of Te nn. R. Civ. P. 12.02, must have made the tactica l decision to trigg er c onversion under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 when he submitted evidentiary materia l in opposit ion to the m otion for summ ary judgme nt. I n light of his lawy er’ s tactica l decision, Mr. Deme rs ca nnot now complain that he was taken by surprise when the mater ial he submitted was actua lly considere d in acc ordanc e with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.
After revie wing the evidentiary materia l in the rec ord both in support of and in opposition to the def

en d ants ’ motion, I

concur with the majority ’s conc lusion that the recor d contains no g enuine dispute of materia l fac t and that the defendants are entitl ed to a judg ment as a ma tter of law

.

________________________________ WI LL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.