172 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn.2005)); see Edwards v. Allen, 216 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tenn.2007); White v. Revco Disc. Drug Ctrs., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tenn.2000); Holloway v. Putnam Cnty., 534 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tenn.1976). In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “‘must construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’ ” Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Tenn.2007) (quoting Trau-Med, 71 S.W.3d at 696); see Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 92-93 (Tenn.2004); Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.1997); Bellar v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 559 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Tenn.1978); see also City of Brentwood v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 149 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). A trial court should grant a motion to
holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true holding that twombly did not undermine the principle that all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the plaintiff and reaffirming that the facts alleged must be taken as true and a complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those faets or will ultimately prevail on the merits holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3 holding that courts must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by  giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts