Phung v. Case ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE July 28, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court
Clerk
HOA DAO PHUNG, ) C/A NO.03A01-9811-CV-00388
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
)
)
v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE
) ANDERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
)
)
)
)
RANDALL CASE, )
) HONORABLE JAMES B. SCOTT, JR.,
Defendant-Appellee. ) JUDGE
For Appellant For Appellee
BILLY P. SAMS DAVID L. FLITCROFT
Oak Ridge, Tennessee Oak Ridge, Tennessee
O P I N IO N
1
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.
Hoa Dao Phung filed this action seeking to recover
damages for breach of warranty and for violations of the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act1, arising out of her purchase
of a residence from the defendant, Randall Case. The trial court
initially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as
to certain issues; it subsequently granted his motion for summary
judgment as to all remaining issues raised by the pleadings. The
plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court’s grant of
partial and then full summary judgment was inappropriate. We
affirm.
I
The procedural history of this case is somewhat
convoluted. The case itself traces its “roots” to when the
plaintiff began experiencing various problems with the house that
she had purchased from the defendant. The plaintiff brought an
action against Case, a builder, for breach of express warranty2
in the Anderson County Trial Justice Court. That action resulted
in a judgment for the plaintiff for $250, plus costs. No appeal
was taken from that judgment and it was subsequently paid.3
1
T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq.
2
The warranty contained in the parties’ sales agreement provides as
follows: “Applicable for a period of 12 months from closing or possession,
whichever is earlier, Builder will warrant (the dwelling) against structural
defects, defects in the plumbing and electrical systems or malfunction of the
heating and cooling systems. Entire property which includes the Driveway,
Landscaping etc.”
3
The pleadings and judgment from the original litigation in the Trial
Justice Court are not a part of the record on this appeal.
2
Shortly thereafter, and prior to the expiration of the
12-month warranty, the plaintiff filed a second suit against the
defendant in the Trial Justice Court. This action was dismissed
by that tribunal on the basis of res judicata.4 The plaintiff
appealed that decision to Circuit Court but subsequently took a
nonsuit. She later filed the instant action in Circuit Court,
and, after obtaining counsel, substituted an amended complaint
alleging breach of warranty and violations of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act.
The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis
of res judicata. The defendant’s motion indicates that it was
served on the plaintiff by mail on December 4, 1996. On January
9, 1997, the Circuit Court entered an order granting partial
summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The order provides
in pertinent part as follows:
It appears to the Court that Ms. Phung in her
Discovery Deposition admitted and the proof
shows that a separate action was
maintained... in which a lawsuit was brought
by Ms. Phung against Randall Case... for cost
of works to complete, correcting landscaping,
driveway, and water absorbency in the
basement of said premises which is the nexus
of the current lawsuit. A judgment was
obtained in that cause and was paid in full.
An appeal was never taken from that action.
No opposing affidavits were presented. That
action constitutes res judicata as to the
matters in this case having previously been
litigated and satisfied. Accordingly, so
much of the complaint that relates to those
matters is dismissed....
4
Again, the pleadings and judgment from this second action in the Trial
Justice Court are not included in the record before us.
3
The Circuit Court further ordered that the case would continue on
the remaining issues. The Court’s order does not state the date
on which the motion was argued.
Some four and a half months after entry of the order
granting partial summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a response
to the defendant’s motion. The response asked that it be
considered by the Circuit Court in the event the court granted a
“Motion to Set-Aside or Reconsider and/or to Clarify Order
Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgement [sic]” that was
apparently filed by the plaintiff5 after entry of the Circuit
Court’s January 9, 1997, order.
On January 15, 1998, the defendant filed another motion
for summary judgment, asserting that the only issues remaining
pertained to alleged problems with the ground default plugs,
movement of the kitchen floor, problems with the garage door
opener, and damage to the driveway concrete. Seeking to negate
the plaintiff’s claim with respect to each of the remaining
issues, the defendant submitted his affidavit, as well as the
affidavits of eight others who had inspected the subject
property. Each of the affidavits states that the alleged problem
either does not exist or was caused solely by the plaintiff’s own
actions. The record does not reflect that the plaintiff filed
any response to the defendant’s motion or submitted any
affidavits or other material.
5
This motion is not a part of the record on appeal. It presumably was
denied by the Circuit Court.
4
Following a hearing on the motion, the Circuit Court
entered an order on May 22, 1998, granting summary judgment in
favor of the defendant on the issues of the garage door opener
and the ground default plugs. The Court noted that the parties
were attempting to resolve the issue concerning the kitchen
floor, and stated that if the plaintiff was not satisfied with
the subsequent repair work, “it would be incumbent upon her to
file an opposing Affidavit and the Court would then dispose of
the matter on Summary Judgment.”
On June 1, 1998, the Circuit Court entered an order in
which it found that the plaintiff’s attorney had “indicated that
no agreement had been reached concerning the floor tiles and that
[the attorney] was unable to provide any counter affidavits”
regarding the remaining issues. Accordingly, the Court granted
full summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed the
action. After her motion for relief under Rules 59 and 60,
Tenn.R.Civ.P., was denied, the plaintiff appealed.
II
We review the Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment
against the standard of Rule 56, Tenn.R.Civ.P. That Rule
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
...[the] judgment sought shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show 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
Rule 56.04, Tenn.R.Civ.P.
When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an
appellate court must decide anew if judgment in summary fashion
is appropriate. Cowden v. Sovran Bank/Central South, 816 S.W.2d
741, 744 (Tenn. 1991); Gonzalez v. Alman Constr. Co., 857 S.W.2d
42, 44-45 (Tenn.App. 1993). Since this determination involves a
question of law, there is no presumption of correctness as to the
trial court’s judgment. Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423, 426
(Tenn. 1997); Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn. 1996).
In making our determination, we must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we must draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Byrd v. Hall, 847
S.W.2d 208, 210-11 (Tenn. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate
only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and then
only if the undisputed material facts entitle the moving party to
a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56.04, Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Byrd,
847 S.W.2d at 211.
As the Supreme Court has stated, “a motion for summary
judgment goes directly to the merits of the litigation, and a
party faced with such a motion may neither ignore it nor treat it
lightly.” Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 210; see also Fowler v. Happy
Goodman Family, 575 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Tenn. 1978). Where the
material relied upon by the moving party demonstrates undisputed
material facts supporting a judgment for that party, the
nonmoving party must, in order to defeat summary judgment,
respond by setting forth admissible facts before the trial court
6
that show a dispute as to those facts. Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215.
The nonmovant cannot in that instance simply rely upon the
allegations of his or her pleadings. See Rule 56.06,
Tenn.R.Civ.P.
III
We first turn to the plaintiff’s arguments regarding
the propriety of the lower court’s grant of partial summary
judgment in its order of January 9, 1997. In this connection,
the plaintiff contends that she was deprived of the 30-day notice
required by Rule 56.04, Tenn.R.Civ.P.6 She maintains that the
hearing on the defendant’s December 5, 1996, motion “apparently”
took place on December 16, 1996. As indicated earlier, the order
granting partial summary judgment on this motion was not entered
until January 9, 1997. There is no mention in that order, or any
direct evidence in the record, of the date of the hearing.
Nevertheless, we note that the January 9, 1997, order is stamped
“RECEIVED” by the trial court clerk on December 27, 1996; in view
of this fact, it is reasonable to infer that the hearing must
have taken place at some point before or on December 27, 1996,
and thus prior to the expiration of the 30-day period required by
Rule 56.04, Tenn.R.Civ.P.7
6
That Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he motion [for summary
judgment] shall be served at least thirty (30) days before the time fixed for
the hearing.”
7
As indicated earlier, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
recites that it was served on the plaintiff by mail on December 4, 1996;
pursuant to Rules 56.04 and 6.05, Tenn.R.Civ.P., the motion was not ripe for
disposition prior to January 7, 1997.
7
With regard to the 30-day period, the Supreme Court has
held as follows:
The purpose of the rule is to allow the
opposing party time to file discovery
depositions, affidavits, etc., as well as to
provide full opportunity to amend. In
prescribing the thirty (30) day period the
rule uses the word “shall” and we hold that
it is mandatory and not discretionary....
...where there is the slightest possibility
that the party opposing the motion for
summary judgment has been denied the
opportunity to file affidavits, take
discovery depositions or amend, by the
disposition of a motion for summary judgment
without a thirty (30) day interval following
the filing of the motion, it will be
necessary to remand the case to cure such
error.
Craven v. Lawson, 534 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tenn. 1976). We have held
that a failure to comply with the rule does not require that a
grant of summary judgment be set aside where the record does not
contain any indication that the nonmoving party opposed the
hearing of the motion within the 30-day period, requested a
continuance, or was prejudiced by the premature hearing. See
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n v. Harris, 709 S.W.2d 592, 595
(Tenn.App. 1985). In so holding, we noted that Rule 36(a),
T.R.A.P., does not require that relief “be granted to a party...
who failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to
prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error,” Id.; we also
pointed out that, pursuant to Rule 36(b), T.R.A.P., a judgment
will not be set aside for harmless error -- for example, where
the record contains no showing of prejudice to the nonmovant.
Id.8
In the instant case, the record contains no indication
that the plaintiff objected in any way to the hearing being held
within 30 days of service of the motion upon her. As was the
case in Harris, it appears that the plaintiff did not oppose the
hearing or request a continuance. It is likewise clear that the
plaintiff submitted no affidavits in opposition to the
defendant’s motion; nor did she file any response to the motion
until several months after it had been granted. In short, the
plaintiff has failed to point to anything in the record to
indicate that the hearing was held over her objection; nor does
she take the position in her brief that such was the case.
Furthermore, she has failed to demonstrate how she has suffered
any prejudice from this alleged error. On the contrary, the
plaintiff’s argument on this point is essentially limited to her
assertion that she was deprived of 30 days’ notice and that such
failure mandates reversal, under the above-quoted language from
Craven.
Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the failure to observe the 30-day period set forth in Rule 56.04,
Tenn.R.Civ.P., does not constitute sufficient grounds to disturb
the judgment in this case. See Harris, 709 S.W.2d at 595; see
also Donnelly v. Walter, 959 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn.App.
1997)(“There was absolutely no reason to set aside the summary
judgments in the absence of some indication that the plaintiff
had a response to the defendants’ properly supported motions.”)
By the same token, there is simply nothing in the
record to indicate that the issues disposed of by the grant of
9
partial summary judgment, i.e., problems with the landscaping,
driveway, and water in the basement, had not been conclusively
determined by the prior adjudication in the Trial Justice Court.
Again, we must point out that the record does not contain a copy
of either of the judgments of the Trial Justice Court, or a
transcript of the evidence from the original case in that court.
What we do have before us is the Circuit Court’s order granting
partial summary judgment, in which the Court found that the
plaintiff’s cause of action as to those issues had been
previously litigated and satisfied. In short, the Circuit Court
found that these issues had been fully litigated in the earlier
suit, and there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise.
It was the appellant’s responsibility to furnish the Court of
Appeals with a record reflecting the alleged error. She failed
to do so. In the absence of a record reflecting error, we must
assume that the trial court acted properly. Lyon v. Lyon, 765
S.W.2d 759, 763 (Tenn.App. 1988).
With regard to the Circuit Court’s grant of both
partial and then full summary judgment, the plaintiff argues that
her “pleading was attested as true by her own oath, and that many
of the allegations were of her own knowledge.” She argues that
because her amended complaint was in the form of a verified
complaint, it served as “the functional equivalent of an
affidavit, and should have been considered” on the question of
summary judgment. The plaintiff acknowledges that she submitted
no countervailing expert testimony regarding the issues that
survived the partial summary judgment; however, she insists that
10
her “sworn complaint stood in opposition” to the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and accompanying affidavits.
Rule 56.06, Tenn.R.Civ.P., sets forth the requisite
form for affidavits:
Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be
made on personal knowledge, shall set forth
such facts as would be admissible in
evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
the affiant is competent to testify to the
matters stated therein....
The Supreme Court has held that statements based upon an
affiant’s belief do not constitute “such facts as would be
admissible in evidence,” within the meaning of Rule 56.06.
Fowler v. Happy Goodman Family, 575 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Tenn.1978).8
Similarly, in Keystone Ins. Co. v. Griffith, 659 S.W.2d 364(Tenn.App. 1983), this court held that statements in an affidavit
made on “information and belief” do not comply with Rule 56.05
(now 56.06) and cannot be considered as evidence. Id. at 366.9
We explained that “[b]elief, no matter how sincere, is not
equivalent to knowledge.” Id. (quoting Jameson v. Jameson, 176
F.2d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1949)).
8
The affidavit at issue in Fowler concluded with the following
statement: “Upon the information I have, I believe that all of the
aforementioned representations of the plaintiffs were made by them knowing
that they were false and they were intended to mislead me.” Fowler, 575
S.W.2d at 498 (emphasis in Fowler opinion). The Court noted that the
affidavit did not divulge the sources of the “information” upon which the
affiant based his “belief,” nor did it demonstrate that the affiant was
“competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Id. (quoting Rule
56.06, Tenn.R.Civ.P.).
9
The affiant in Keystone stated that he had personal knowledge of all
facts set forth in his affidavit “except as to matters indicated to be on
information and belief, and those matters I verily believe to be true.” Id.
at 365.
11
In the instant case, the oath attached to the
plaintiff’s amended complaint recites as follows:
HOA DAO PHUNG, having been duly sworn
according to law, makes oath that she has
read the foregoing Amended Complaint and that
the statements set forth therein are true to
the best of her knowledge, information and
belief.
Thus, it is clear that the allegations in the plaintiff’s amended
complaint were not based exclusively upon her personal knowledge.
In light of her oath, it is impossible to determine which
allegations were founded upon personal knowledge, and which were
merely statements based upon what she “believed” to be true.
This being the case, we cannot say that the verified complaint
meets the standards required of affidavits by Rule 56.06,
Tenn.R.Civ.P. We therefore do not agree with the plaintiff that
the amended complaint is the “functional equivalent of an
affidavit.”
The defendant presented the court with several
affidavits demonstrating that there were no disputed material
facts creating a genuine issue for trial. Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at
215. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff “to set forth
specific facts, not legal conclusions, by using affidavits or the
discovery materials listed in Rule [56.04],” establishing that
there indeed existed genuine issues of material fact. Byrd, 847
S.W.2d at 215. The plaintiff was not entitled to simply rely
upon the allegations of her pleadings. Rule 56.06,
Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215. The record indicates,
12
however, that approximately four months passed between the filing
of the defendant’s second motion for summary judgment and the
entry of the Circuit Court’s two orders granting summary
judgment. During this time, the plaintiff did not file a
response to the defendant’s motion, did not submit any opposing
affidavits, and did not file a motion for a continuance in order
to obtain affidavits or pursue discovery.
In light of the foregoing, we hold that the trial court
was correct in granting the defendant’s motions for summary
judgment, both initially as to those matters which had been
adjudicated in the original action, and subsequently as to the
remaining issues in the case. The plaintiff’s arguments to the
contrary are found to be without merit.
IV
The decision of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on
appeal are taxed to the appellant. This case is remanded to the
trial court for the collection of costs assessed there, pursuant
to applicable law.
__________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:
________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
13
________________________
Herschel P. Franks, J.
14