By The Law Offices of John Day, P.C. on Jan 10, 2025 05:54 am
Where a case was dismissed pursuant to the defendant’s Rule 12 motion, the trial court should not have held a subsequent hearing on and granted dismissal under the defendant’s separate TPPA petition. In Horst v. Gaar, No. W2023-00442-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2024), the plaintiff was the former son-in-law of the defendant. Plaintiff ran an investment business, and while plaintiff and defendant’s daughter were divorcing, defendant allegedly made statements to one of plaintiff’s clients that caused the client to move his investments to a different firm. The complaint alleged that defendant told the client that plaintiff was leaving Memphis and moving to Las Vegas, and that such a move would “jeopardiz[e] the service and expertise that [client] was used to getting from [the business] locally.” Based on these statements, plaintiff filed this action for tortious interference with a business contract, intentional interference with a business relationship, and a violation of the TCPA. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12, asserting that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Defendant also filed a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”). The rule 12 motion was set for hearing, and the trial court granted dismissal. In the order granting dismissal, the trial court stated that “it would retain jurisdiction over the unheard TPPA petition to dismiss.” Some time later, the trial court held a hearing and granted the TPPA petition to dismiss. The trial court also awarded costs, attorney’s fees and expenses in the TPPA dismissal order. On appeal, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 was affirmed, but the Court of Appeals vacated the decision to grant dismissal under the TPPA. A Rule 12 motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, and the Court of Appeals agreed that dismissal was appropriate here. Looking first to the interference with contract claim, the Court noted that a plaintiff asserting a common law or statutory claim for interference with contract must prove certain elements, including that a breach of contract occurred. The plaintiff’s contract with the client at issue permitted the client to move his money at any time for any or no reason. Because of this language, the Court agreed with the trial court that the client did not breach the contract. Without a breach of contract, plaintiff could not state a claim for tortious interference with contract and dismissal was appropriate. Continue reading
Read in browser »
Recent Articles:
| 