Court Opinion

ID: 9691530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:37:38.177452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:22.103346
License: Public Domain

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The Attorneys have filed what they call a “Petition for Limited Rehearing” pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. They ask us to clarify our opinion by, in their words,
*793stating that the Court’s opinion was based on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss and not a Rule 56 summary judgment motion and that the remand is without prejudice to the filing of a property supported Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
As our original opinion clearly indicates, the issue before us on appeal was the propriety of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Attorneys. While it is true that the Attorneys filed a motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12, it is likewise true that “matters outside the pleadings [were] presented to and not excluded by the [trial] court.” See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 and 12.03. Under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12, the Attorneys’ motion was properly treated and disposed of by the trial court as a motion for summary judgment.
We decline to embrace the Attorneys’ suggestion that we should advise the trial court with respect to whether and how that court should respond to possible future filings in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.