Harriet & Henderson Yarns, Inc. v. Castle

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the court are Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint includes six counts, and Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to four of those counts. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied in its entirety. Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to the entire case. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background Facts

This is a complex case, featuring multiple parties and multiple claims. It arises out of the creation in 1995 of Star Hosiery, Inc. (“Star”). FLR Hosiery (“FLR”) and Lora Lee Knitting (“Lora Lee”) were two pre-existing Tennessee hosiery companies, *821 both experiencing financial difficulties in early 1995. Both companies were heavily indebted to trade creditors, most of whom supplied them with raw materials. Together they owed approximately $3,000,-000, much of it to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff RDC, Inc. was FLR’s landlord. Plaintiffs Harriet & Henderson Yarns, Inc., Thoma-ston Mills, Inc., Unifi, Inc., McMichael Mills, Jefferson Mills, Inc., Mount Vernon Mills, Inc., Huskey Knitting Mills, Jacob Textile Sales, Jones Textile, Kings Mountain Hosiery Mills, Inc., Merlin Creel Systems, Inc., O’Mara, Inc., Pharr Yarns, Inc., and Ruppe Hosiery, Inc. were suppliers of yarn or textile services. Brookfield & Company (“Brookfield”), an investment banking firm, became involved with FLR and Lora Lee, assisting in the two companies’ attempt to secure additional financing. Brookfield arranged a deal whereby FLR and Lora Lee would contribute substantially all their combined assets to form a new company, Star. Brookfield arranged for Congress Financial (“Congress”) to finance the new company. Brookfield also engaged the Defendant law firm Wolff Ar-dis, P.C. (“Wolff Ardis”) to represent Star during its creation, incorporation, and loan deal from Congress. Defendant Renee Castle (“Castle”) was a shareholder in Wolff Ardis, and was the lead attorney for the Star transactions.

In order for Star to obtain financing from Congress, Brookfield advised that much of the pre-existing FLR and Lora Lee debt should be restructured into subordinated, convertible debenture notes (“Debenture Notes”). 1 The Debenture Notes were to be paid by Star over three years. To induce the existing creditors to accept the Debenture Notes, the creditors were granted a second lien in Star’s machinery and equipment to secure the Debenture Notes, behind a first lien held by Congress. The creditors were also told that the Star merger and financing plan would improve the likelihood that the current debt would be paid off. As the creditors were informed about the proposed creation of Star, they were asked to sign confidentiality agreements, which prevented the creditors from sharing information or discussing the proposal.

Brookfield had Castle prepare the necessary documents. Castle drafted the Debenture Note based on a form given her by Brookfield. She also drafted the Indenture Agreement, based on a form in the Wolff Ardis computer files. The Debenture Notes provided that Star promised to pay various amounts to the different Debenture holders. They also named Wolff Ardis as trustee. Other relevant parts of the Debenture Notes included the following:

1. Payment of Principal. The total obligation of Star to all Debenture Holders is set forth in the Indenture Agreement dated as of December 1, 1995, by and between Star and Wolff Ardis P.C., as Trustee for the Debenture Holders (the “Indenture Agreement”) ....

5. Indenture Agreement. This Debenture is one of several debentures of Star issued pursuant to the Indenture Agreement, the provisions of which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Debenture. All the Debentures issued pursuant to that Indenture Agreement are equally secured by a second lien and security interest in certain of Star’s equipment, as more fully described in the Indenture Agreement. Reference is hereby made to the Indenture Agreement for a more detailed description of the property in which the Trustee holds a security interest, the nature and extent of the security interest, the rights and obligations of the Debenture Holder and other debenture holders, of Star, and of the Trustee.

6. Events of Default. One or more of the following events shall be deemed “Events of Default”: (a) If any payment *822 of principal and interest on this Debenture is not paid when due; provided that the Debenture Holder shall give Star written notice of such default and Star shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of such notice within which to cure such default; ...

The Indenture Agreement stated, in relevant part:

This Indenture Agreement between Star Hosiery, Inc., a Tennessee corporation (the “Company” or “Star”) and Renee E. Castle of Wolff Ardis, P.C. having an address of 6055 Primacy Parkway, Suite 360, Memphis, TN 38119 (the “Trustee”), dated as of this 12th date of December, 1995 is for the benefit of certain holders of Debenture Notes (“Notehold-ers”) who hold Debenture Notes issued pursuant to this Indenture.- Such Debenture Notes are collectively referred to herein as the “Debentures.” The terms of the Debentures include those stated in the Note Debentures and those made part of the Note Debentures by reference to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “Trust Indenture Act”) as in effect on the date of the Debentures ... Security. The Debenture Notes shall be secured by a subordinate lien on all equipment owned by the Company. This hen shall extend on a pro rata basis to each Noteholder. It shall have a second priority (inferior to the liens securing Senior Indebtedness) on all equipment with the exception of the equipment presently encumbered by liens in favor of GECC, Speizman and Nations Bank, in which case the lien shall have a third priority....

Events of Default. One or more of the following events shall be deemed “Events of Default”: (a) If any payment of principal and interest on this Debenture is not paid when due; provided that the Debenture Holder shall give the Company written notice of such default and the Company shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of such notice within which to cure such default; ...

The Trustee. The Trustee shall be under no obligation to exercise any of its rights or powers under this Indenture relating to any issue of Debentures at the request of any of the holders thereof, unless they shall have offered to the Trustee security and indemnity satisfactory to it....

The Debenture Notes prepared by Castle were sent to each Plaintiff in November, 1995 by FLR and Lora Lee, each for a varying amount. The Indenture Agreement was presented to Plaintiffs by their debtors as the best chance for them to recover the money owed them, and they were urged by FLR and Lora Lee to sign the Debenture Notes. Each Plaintiff did sign and return its Debenture Note. Once all Notes had been returned, Castle prepared the final Indenture Agreement, which stated that the total sum owed to the holders of the Debenture Notes pursuant to the Notes was $2,322,973.42.

The closing of the transactions occurred on December 12, 1995. At the closing were Defendant Castle and representatives of FLR, Lora Lee, Star, Congress, and Brookfield. None of the Plaintiffs had an attorney or other representative present. After the closing, copies of the signed Debenture Notes were sent to Plaintiffs, and the original Debenture Notes were kept in the offices of Wolff Ardis.

Castle had received instructions from Congress regarding the execution and fling of UCC-1 financing statements to perfect Congress’ first lien in Star’s equipment. Those financing statements, executed by Star in favor of Congress, were duly recorded with the Tennessee Secretary of State. However, there was never any discussion among any of the parties to the transaction about preparing or filing financing statements in favor of Plaintiffs. No UCC-1 financing statements were prepared, executed, or filed with regard to Plaintiffs’ lien in Star’s equipment. Because no financing statement was filed, the Debenture holders’ lien was never properly perfected under Tennessee law.

*823 Star made the required payments from January to June, 1996. However, it then stopped making payments, and on August 16, 1996, Star filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs learned that no financing statements had been filed on their behalf. Because the lien was unperfected, each Plaintiff was treated as an unsecured creditor in Star’s bankruptcy case. Star’s assets were sold in bankruptcy, resulting in full repayment to Congress, but only approximately a 3% dividend to Plaintiffs and other unsecured creditors. Plaintiffs contend that they would have received all or most of the debt owed to them under the Debenture Notes if their security interest in Star’s equipment had been properly perfected.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper “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 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). In other words, summary judgment is appropriately granted “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The party moving for summary judgment may satisfy its initial burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact by showing that there is a lack of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. This in turn may be accomplished by submitting affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or by attacking the opponent’s evidence to show why it does not support a judgment for the nonmoving party. 10a Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2727, at 35 (2d ed. Supp.1996).

Facts must be presented to the court for evaluation. Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int’l, 171 F.3d 1065, 1068 (6th Cir.1999). The court may consider any material that would be admissible or usable at trial. 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2721, at 40 (2d ed.1983). Although hearsay evidence may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment, Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921, 927 (6th Cir.1999), evidentiary materials presented to avoid summary judgment otherwise need not be in a form that would be admissible at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 400 (6th Cir.1999).

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, all the evidence and facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Walborn v. Erie County Care Facility, 150 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir.1998). Justifiable inferences based on facts are also to be drawn in favor of the non-movant. Kalamazoo River, 171 F.3d at 1068.

Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment has been made, the “adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). A genuine issue for trial exists if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348.

III. Analysis

The crux of this suit is Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants had the responsibility to *824 perfect Plaintiffs’ security interests, or to ensure that the interests were perfected. Plaintiffs have filed six distinct complaints, and have moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the last four. Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all six claims. The court will discuss each claim in turn. Additionally, Defendants make two other summary judgment arguments which the court will address. Of course, Tennessee law governs the substantive questions raised by these motions. Ene R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).

A. Professional Negligence and Professional Negligence Regarding Third-Party Beneficiaries of Attorney-Client Relationship

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs make two separate negligence claims, one entitled Professional Negligence, and the other entitled Professional Negligence Regarding Third-Party Beneficiaries of Attorney-Client Relationship. As the court reads the many briefs submitted on this issue by both parties, it is clear that the two sides are not only disagreeing, but are not always addressing the same question. The court attempts to eliminate the chaff and focus on the substance of the claims.

1. There Was No Attorney-Client Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Defendants

Under Tennessee law, the general rule is that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit must establish (1) the employment of the attorney, (2) a negligent breach of duty by the attorney, and (3) actual damages resulting from the breach. Tanner v. Caplin & Drysdale, 24 F.3d 874, 878 (6th Cir.1994) (quoting Blocker v. Dearborn & Ewing, 851 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App.1992)). Defendants argue that they were never employed as attorneys by Plaintiffs, and that in the absence of an attorney-client relationship, Plaintiffs’ claim must fail. Plaintiffs do not actually dispute the factual point that they never hired Defendants to represent them. Instead, Plaintiffs cite legal authority for the point that Tennessee, in certain circumstances, allows non-clients to sue attorneys for professional negligence. The court will address those cases momentarily. See Sec. 111(A)(5), infra. For now, the court finds that there was no attorney-client relationship between the parties, as Defendants never retained Plaintiffs to represent them.

%. Plaintiffs Were Not Third-Party Intended Beneficiaries of an Attorney-Client Relationship

Plaintiffs’ second negligence claim is that Defendants breached a duty owed to Plaintiffs as intended third-party beneficiaries of the attorney-client relationship between Defendants and Star. As a general rule, an attorney may be liable for negligence only to clients or parties with whom the attorney is in privity of contract. See, e.g., Stinson v. Brand, 738 S.W.2d 186, 190 (Tenn.1987). The third-party beneficiary theory creates an exception to this general rule. In order to recover under the third-party beneficiary theory, a third party must show that he is the intended beneficiary of the contract between the attorney and client. See, e.g., Pelham v. Griesheimer, 92 Ill.2d 13, 64 Ill.Dec. 544, 440 N.E.2d 96,. 99 (1982); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 (1981). The third party “must allege and prove that the intent of the client to benefit the nonclient third party was the primary or direct purpose of the transaction or relationship.” Pelham, 64 Ill.Dec. 544, 440 N.E.2d at 99.

There are two problems with Plaintiffs’ third-party beneficiary claim. The first is that Tennessee has never adopted this theory as a cause of action. Plaintiffs do not dispute this point, but instead cite Tennessee cases in which courts, without expressly adopting the third-party beneficiary theory, have found a cause of action for negligence against attorneys by non-clients. The court agrees that Tennessee law does permit negligence actions against *825 attorneys by non-clients, and it will address this issue below. See Sec. 111(A)(5), infra.

The second problem with Plaintiffs’ argument is that even if Tennessee had adopted the third-party beneficiary of an attorney-client relationship theory, Plaintiffs would have no cause of action under it. Plaintiffs offer no evidence to support a theory that the primary purpose of the relationship between Defendants and Star was to benefit Plaintiffs. Furthermore, it is completely contrary to common sense to suppose that Star would enter into a complex financial agreement with its creditors, and hire attorneys primarily to benefit those creditors. Accordingly, inasmuch as Tennessee has not adopted a third-party beneficiary of an attorney-client relationship theory, and as Plaintiffs have failed to show that they were the intended beneficiaries of the attorney-client relationship between Defendants and Star, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claim of Negligence Regarding Third-Party Beneficiaries is GRANTED.

Defendants argue that since Plaintiffs did not have an attorney-client relationship with Defendants, and were not the intended beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship between Defendants and Star, the court’s analysis should end here. As Plaintiffs accurately point out, however, Tennessee law allows recovery for attorney negligence by parties who are neither clients nor intended beneficiaries. Before proceeding to that analysis, there are two further preliminary points which must be addressed.

3. Formality in Pleading is Not Required

Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges attorney negligence regarding third-party beneficiaries, but that the cases Plaintiffs cite in support of their argument against summary judgment do not discuss this theory. Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs alleged the elements of third-party beneficiary of attorney-client relationship, a narrow doctrine based on contractual principles that is not recognized in Tennessee. Plaintiffs should not now be allowed to set forth a new theory of liability that was not contained in their Complaint simply because they have had the opportunity to research and discover that the theories alleged in their Complaint are not ... recognized or applicable in Tennessee.” (Defs.’ Reply to Pis.’ Memo, of Law in Opposition to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ.J., p. 11). The court does not accept this narrow view of what is required in the complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 8(a). “The ‘theory of the pleadings’ doctrine, under which a complaint must proceed upon some definite theory and plaintiff must succeed on that theory or not succeed at all, has been all but abolished under the federal rules.” Fitzgerald v. Codex Corp., 882 F.2d 586, 589 (1st Cir.1989) (citing Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5 Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1219 (1969)). See also In re Plywood Antitrust Litig., 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir.1981); Rohler v. TRW, Inc., 576 F.2d 1260, 1264 (7th Cir.1978). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A Plaintiffs’ Claim is Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations

In Tennessee, the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action is one year from the date on which the cause of action accrues. Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-104. The Supreme Court of Tennessee has ruled that the time period begins to run only when each of two distinct elements has been satisfied: (1) the plaintiff must suffer an actual injury as a result of the defendant’s negligence, and (2) the plaintiff must know or reasonably should have known that the injury was caused by defendant’s negligence. Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 28-30 (Tenn.1995).

*826 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on June 13, 1997. Defendants argue that the cause of action accrued in December, 1995, which is when the closing of the transaction that is the subject of this case occurred. Therefore, according to Defendants, seventeen months lapsed between the alleged negligence and the filing, and thus Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants’ argument fails because they misidentify the date of injury. A cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiffs have suffered actual injury. Id. at 30. See also Ameraccount Club, Inc. v. Hill, 617 S.W.2d 876 (Tenn.1981). In this case, Plaintiffs did not suffer an actual injury until the distribution of Star’s assets, or at the earliest, when Plaintiffs were classified as unsecured creditors after Star filed for bankruptcy in August, 1996. Thus Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, filed in June, 1997, was filed within the statute of limitations period.

5. Defendants Will Not Be Granted Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claim

Finally, the court addresses the merits of Plaintiffs’ attorney negligence claim. The strongest authority in favor of Plaintiffs comes in the form of two decisions by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Stinson v. Brand, 738 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn.1987), and Collins v. Binkley, 750 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiffs in Stinson brought a negligence suit against a law firm. Id. at 187. The plaintiffs had sold two houses they owned to a real estate broker, and were paid primarily in the form of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. Id. at 187-88. The deed of trust conveyed the property from the purchaser of the property to the purchaser’s attorney, acting as trustee. Id. at 188. The instruments were executed at the defendant law firm on the day of the transfer. Id. The plaintiffs were given the deed of trust and promissory note without any instructions. Id. at 188-89. The plaintiffs did not record the deed of trust. Id. The purchaser of the property failed to pay the note according to its terms. Id. at 189. The property was then re-sold, and the new owners executed and recorded a new deed of trust on the property. Id. Subsequently, the real estate broker went into bankruptcy, and a suit was brought against the attorneys whose firm prepared the original legal instruments. Id.

The defendant attorneys argued that they had not advised or represented the plaintiffs. They also argued that they could not have done so responsibly since the purchaser of the property was their regular client. The Tennessee Supreme Court recognized “the general rule that an attorney is not liable for negligence to third parties who are not clients and are not in privity of contract with the attorney.” Id. at 190. However, the Court then noted that there are exceptions, and found sufficient facts by which a jury could find negligence. The Court based its decision on three legal theories, under any one of which a jury could find that the attorneys breached a duty they owed to the plaintiffs. First, the Court cited Tartera v. Palumbo, 224 Tenn. 262, 453 S.W.2d 780 (1970), for the proposition that attorneys can be liable for negligently supplying false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions. Id. Second, the Court stated that “appellants so far involved themselves in the transaction that a trier of fact could find that they were representing multiple interests, not just the purchaser, and could be liable to appellees for negligence on that basis.” Id. The Court based this theory in large part on the fact that one of the attorneys was named as trustee “to act for and on behalf of the holder of the note [i.e. the plaintiffs].” Id. Third, the Court noted that it was unclear who was to pay for the services of the attorneys, and that if a jury found that the law firm charged or intended to charge the plaintiffs for their services, then the attorneys would have been representing the property sellers. Id. at 191.

A few months after Stinson, the Tennessee Supreme Court revisited the issue *827 in Collins, supra. The plaintiffs in that case were real estate purchasers suing the attorney of the property seller. Id. at 737. The attorney had negligently prepared warranty deeds associated with the sale. Id. When the seller went into bankruptcy after the transfer of the property, the bankruptcy trustee successfully sued to void the deeds because they were defective. Id. at 738. Citing Stinson, the Court noted that there were alternative theories under which an attorney could be found liable for negligence to a non-client. Id. at 739. In Collins it was undisputed that the attorney was employed by the seller to prepare the deeds. Id. However, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence under which the attorney could be found negligent under the principles of the Tartera case cited in Stinson. Id. The Court stated, “[TJhere was evidence that the attorney knew that plaintiffs would rely upon him and that it was his professional responsibility to prepare a valid warranty deed.... Further, there was evidence that the omission in the acknowledgment was below the standard of care required of an attorney preparing instruments for conveyance of real property. Those are the elements that give rise to the duty of an attorney to non-clients and may result in liability for the damages sustained by non-clients.” Id.

Standing in opposition to the argument supported by Stinson and Collins is Men-uskin v. Williams, 940 F.Supp. 1199 (E.D.Tenn.1996). In that case, the plaintiffs purchased some homes from a construction company. Id. at 1203. Only after the sale did they become aware of prior existing hens on the property, when the bank which held the liens moved to foreclose. Id. at 1206. Employees of the company had told the plaintiffs that the company’s lawyer was taking care of the closing of the sale, and that plaintiffs did not need their own attorneys. Id. at 1204. Plaintiffs did not have their own attorneys at the closing. Id. Nor was the defendant attorney present at the closing. Id. at 1205. The plaintiffs did not assert that the attorney was even aware that representations had been made that an attorney was “purportedly performing title and legal work on [their] behalf.” Id. The attorney had been asked only to prepare warranty deeds, not to perform a title search or furnish title insurance, and had only been paid for preparing the warranty deeds. Id. at 1207.

The plaintiffs sued under a number of theories, of which their claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentation are relevant here. The district court granted summary judgment on the negligence claim. Id. at 1212. The court found that the attorney had been hired by the property seller for a limited duty only, i.e. preparation of the warranty deeds. Id. The plaintiffs had never met the attorney, and had failed to show that he was aware that construction company employees had implicated him “for a second and unapparent duty.” Id.

The district court also granted summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim. In that portion of its holding, the court addressed the implications of Stinson and Collins. The Menuskin court distinguished those cases by stating that the “level of involvement” of the attorney in the real estate transactions at issue did not rise to the level of the defendants in Stinson. Menuskin, 940 F.Supp. at 1215. The court went on to emphasize the element of foreseeability, stating, “It must be shown that the attorney should reasonably foresee that the non-client will rely upon him for legal services.” Id. at 1216 (quoting One Nat’l Bank v. Antonellis, 80 F.3d 606 (1st Cir.1996)). The court also emphasized the potential conflict of interest problem with imposing a duty on attorneys to non-clients. The court expressed concern that such a duty could conflict with the duty owed to clients, or with attorney-client confidences. Id. at 1217 (citing Antonellis; Abell v. Potomac Ins. Co., 858 F.2d 1104 (5th Cir.1988)).

This court finds that its decision in the case at bar is controlled by Stinson. First, the facts of that case are most simi *828 lar to this one. The plaintiffs in Stinson, like the plaintiffs here, faced a financial loss because they failed to record a document. 738 S.W.2d at 188-89. The defendant attorneys in Stinson had never advised or represented the plaintiffs. Id. However, they did prepare the documents. Id. And one of the attorneys in that case, as in this one, was named as trustee. Id. at 188. In addition, the reasoning of the Stinson Court applies here. In this case, as in Stinson, Defendants “so far involved themselves in the transaction that a trier of fact could find that they were representing multiple interests, ... and could be liable ... for negligence on that basis.” Id. at 190.

Defendants attempt to distinguish Stin-son in part by pointing out that Plaintiffs never paid any fees to Defendants. (Defs.’ Reply to Pls.’ Memo, of Law in Opposition to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ.J., p. 12). However, the Stinson Court was clear that the possibility of payment was only one of three alternate grounds under which negligence could be found. It stated, “Even without charging the sellers, appellants may be found to have been acting