Atchley v. RK Company, No. 99-5486

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtO'MALLEY, D. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined. GILMAN
Citation224 F.3d 537
Parties(6th Cir. 2000) Lori D. Atchley d/b/a RCW Realty Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RK Company, Robert R. Krilich, and Donna J. Krilich, Defendants-Appellees. Argued:
Docket NumberNo. 99-5486
Decision Date07 March 2000

Page 537

224 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2000)
Lori D. Atchley d/b/a RCW Realty Company, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RK Company, Robert R. Krilich, and Donna J. Krilich, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-5486
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Argued: March 7, 2000
Decided and Filed: August 16, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 98-00319--Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge.

Page 538

Harold Naill Falls, Jr., FALLS, RAMSEY & VEACH, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

John S. Hicks, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN & CALDWELL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Before: SILER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; O'MALLEY, District Judge*.

O'MALLEY, D. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined. GILMAN, J. (p. 542), delivered a separate concurring opinion.

OPINION

O'MALLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Lori Atchley, d/b/a RCW Realty Company, ("Atchley") appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees RK Company and Robert and Donna Krilich. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.

I.

The following facts are not in dispute. This case centers around a piece of property located in Sumner County, Tennessee, known as "Foxland." In 1994, Krilich owned Foxland and entered into an agreement to transfer Foxland (and certain other assets) to Health Care Corporation of America, Inc. ("HCCA"), in exchange for some HCCA stock. Krilich and HCCA also agreed that they would not record the deed transferring Foxland from Krilich to HCCA until HCCA had registered the stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 1996, a real estate developer named Jimmy Stinson approached Krilich about buying Foxland. At first, Krilich told Stinson that HCCA owned Foxland, even though there was no recorded deed transferring the property from Krilich to HCCA. Acting upon this representation, Stinson entered into negotiations with HCCA to buy Foxland. HCCA then approached appellant Atchley, a real estate broker, who drew up a contract of sale between HCCA, as seller, and Stinson, as buyer. HCCA and Stinson signed Atchley's contract on May 8, 1997, agreeing that the purchase price for Foxland would be $16 million, Stinson would immediately pay HCCA $1,000 in earnest money, and HCCA would pay Atchley a commission of 6%, or $960,000, upon completion of the sale.

In February of 1997, however, a few months before Stinson and HCCA signed the Foxland sale contract, Krilich signed and recorded a deed transferring Foxland from himself to defendant RK Company, a company he controlled. HCCA learned of Krilich's action in April of 1997, when it finally recorded its own, earlier-signed deed, which had transferred Foxland from Krilich to HCCA. Thus, when HCCA entered into the May, 1997 contract to sell Foxland to Stinson, HCCA and Atchley both knew that there existed a potential title dispute.

Atchley addressed this potential title dispute in the HCCA/Stinson contract by adding certain language under the heading "Miscellaneous Conditions." Specifically, the contract provided:

[HCCA] hereby discloses that as of the date of the signing of this contract, the title to [Foxland] is the subject of pending negotiation and possible litigation with [Krilich], and at this time is not a clear and marketable title. This contract is contingent upon [HCCA] resolving all questions and issues regarding title, and obtaining clear and marketable title in order to transfer to [Stinson] clear and marketable title. If title is not made clear and marketable, this contract is null and void, and [HCCA] and [Stinson] shall hold each other harmless, and

Page 539

earnest money will be refunded to [Stinson].

At the time the contract was signed, HCCA and Atchley were hopeful that the title dispute with Krilich would be quickly resolved.

Unfortunately, HCCA's hope was false; HCCA and Krilich are currently litigating ownership of title to Foxland in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.1 In October of 1997, it became clear to Stinson that HCCA was unable to timely2 meet the "miscellaneous condition" of "obtaining clear and marketable title." Accordingly, Stinson sought and obtained the return of his $1,000 earnest money. Stinson and HCCA never consummated their deal, so Atchley never received her expected $960,000 in commission. Stinson has since contracted with RK Company to purchase Foxland.

II.

After it became clear to Atchley that Krilich's actions had worked to deprive her of nearly one million dollars in commission, Atchley sued the defendants for procurement of breach of contract, in violation of Tennessee law. The district court had diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, and we have jurisdiction over Atchley's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Jackson v. Leighton, 168 F.3d 903, 909 (6th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The facts and inferences drawn therefrom are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Jackson, 168 F.3d at 909. Ultimately, this Court must decide "whether the evidence presents sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., Inc., 96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986)).

In her complaint, Atchley claims the defendants "induced the breach of the [HCCA/Stinson] Contract," in violation of "Tennessee common law and also [Tenn.

Page 540

Code Ann.] §47-50-109." Complaint at ¶12. Tennessee courts acknowledge that T.C.A. §47-50-109 merely codifies Tennessee common law regarding procurement of a breach of contract, except to the extent that the statute allows for treble damages. Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 152, 158 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); see Edwards v. Travelers Ins. of Hartford, Conn., 563 F.2d 105, 119-20 (6th Cir. 1977) (comparing and contrasting the statutory and common law actions)3. The Myers court sets out the elements of a cause of action for procurement of the breach of a contract in violation of both the statute and Tennessee common law:

1) there must be a legal contract; 2) the wrongdoer must have knowledge of the existence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 practice notes
  • Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co., No. 3:07 CV 2491.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • December 17, 2008
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th Cir.2000). Count One: Civil RICO-18 U.S.C. § 1964 Thermodyn filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on a single element of th......
  • Garrett v. Fisher Titus Hosp., Case No. 3:02 CV 7562.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • May 24, 2004
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th B. PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CLAIMS Garrett seeks redress for alleged violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19......
  • Davison v. Roadway Exp., Inc., No. 3:07 CV 424.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • June 26, 2008
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, All U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th III. Discussion Plaintiff claims interference with his FMLA rights and retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Defe......
  • Dryer v. Flower Hosp., No. 3:04 CV 7631.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • August 25, 2005
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th Cir.2000). B. Americans with Disabilities Act Claims Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals "in the fu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
149 cases
  • Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co., No. 3:07 CV 2491.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • December 17, 2008
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th Cir.2000). Count One: Civil RICO-18 U.S.C. § 1964 Thermodyn filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on a single element of th......
  • Garrett v. Fisher Titus Hosp., Case No. 3:02 CV 7562.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • May 24, 2004
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th B. PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CLAIMS Garrett seeks redress for alleged violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19......
  • Davison v. Roadway Exp., Inc., No. 3:07 CV 424.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • June 26, 2008
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, All U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th III. Discussion Plaintiff claims interference with his FMLA rights and retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Defe......
  • Dryer v. Flower Hosp., No. 3:04 CV 7631.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • August 25, 2005
    ...is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537, 539 (6th Cir.2000). B. Americans with Disabilities Act Claims Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals "in the fu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT