Hart v. Joseph Decosimo & Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Cored, LLC v. Hatcher

    No. M2020-00083-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court found that the first, second, and fourth factors had "no significant impact" on the analysis and that "the dispositive factor" was the reason why the filings were late

    Because the trial court considered and relied upon the declarations filed by the Hatchers in reaching its decision on the motion, the motion should have been converted by the trial court into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. See Mitrano v. Houser, 240 S.W.3d 854, 859 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Hart v. Joseph Decosimo & Co., LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). Although the trial court erred in failing to treat the Hatchers' Renewed Motion as one for summary judgment, "this Court may affirm the trial court's decision when rendered on different grounds."

  2. Garner v. Coffee Cnty. Bank

    No. M2014-01956-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2015)   Cited 12 times
    In Garner, the Tennessee Court of Appeals relied on Overholt v. Merchants & Planters Bank for the proposition that "wrongful foreclosure" can be asserted "as a primary cause of action when a mortgagor asserts that a foreclosure action is improper under a deed of trust."

    Thus, verified facts that are favorable to an opponent of a motion for summary judgment are to be treated as true when a court determines whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment. Hart v. Joseph Decosimoand Co., LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). In this case, however, Mr. Garner did not verify that the facts contained in his amended complaint were true; rather, he made an oath that the statements were "true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief."

  3. BRIGHT v. GUE

    No. E2007-00127-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    As this Court has stated, "[u]nder our standard of review of the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we are required to take as true verified facts favorable to the opponent of the motion." Hart v. Joseph Decosimo and Company,LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004). Thus, in the instant matter, the trial court was obliged to take as true the statement in Mr. Bright's complaint that "[o]n or about the 22nd day of January, 2004, [he] was informed that he did not suffer from a `flesh eating bacteria' as diagnosed by [UTMC], but was diagnosed with a much less severe condition which was successfully treated with an ointment.

  4. Mitrano v. Houser

    240 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Applying New Hampshire law

    In support of his motion to dismiss, Mr. Houser filed ten exhibits, including copies of the New Hampshire Superior Court orders and other documents pertinent to Mr. Mitrano's earlier action against Mr. Houser. Because these are matters outside the pleadings that were considered by the trial court, we must treat the motion to dismiss as one filed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56, i.e., as a motion for summary judgment. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 ("If . . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56."); Hart v. Joseph Decosimo Co., LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 71 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

  5. Parks v. State

    No. E2005-02790-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2007)

    Because these are matters outside the pleadings that were apparently considered by the trial court, we must treat the motion to dismiss as one filed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56, i.e., as a motion for summary judgment. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 ("If. . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56."); Hart v. Joseph Decosimo and Co., LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 71 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004). To be entitled to a summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  6. Wiley v. Williams

    No. E2005-02518-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2006)   Cited 4 times

    In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants filed copies of pleadings filed in Probate Court, the deed for the purchase of the marital residence of Opal and Grover Williams, and an affidavit of the Sevier County Register of Deeds. Because these are matters outside the pleadings that were considered by the trial court, we must treat the motion to dismiss as one filed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56, i.e., as a motion for summary judgment. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 ("If, . . ., matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56."); Hart v. Joseph Decosimo and Co., LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 71 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004). To be entitled to a summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  7. Land v. Dixon

    No. E2004-03019-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2005)   Cited 5 times
    In Land, upon which Defendant Executive Aviation relies entirely in making this argument, the Tennessee Court of Appeals found the plaintiffs knew the truth regarding every alleged misrepresentation before they closed on a real property sale, therefore their claims of misrepresentation failed.

    However, because it is a matter outside the pleadings and was considered by the trial court, we must treat the motion to dismiss as one filed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56, i.e., as a motion for summary judgment. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 ("If, . . ., matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56."); Hart v. Joseph Decosimo and Co., LLP, 145 S.W.3d 67, 71 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004). A motion for summary judgment should be granted when the movant demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.