Who knew Pineapple Express had such technically accurate legal scenes?

Service of process can drive me and my clients crazy. Before filing the lawsuit, I am in total control of all aspects of the timing of the case, from the initial review to filing the Complaint.

But, once I file the complaint and send it to be served on the defendant, we are sometimes at the mercy of luck and a little bit of good timing.

Nobody wants to be served with a lawsuit (for obvious reasons), and, until you get them served, they have no responsibility to answer and the case doesn’t move forward.

In many cases, a plaintiff has to employ creative tactics to get the process into the hands of the defendant.

You’ve probably seen this in a movie, where the process server hides in the bushes, hands somebody a piece of paper, and yells “You’ve been served!” as he runs away.

So, yes, I thought about the opening sequence from Pineapple Express, when I read a recent opinion by Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Lyle about an evading defendant and an irritated process server, in Joyce B. Martin v. Devon Lawrence, et. al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 20-1091-III.

In that case, the process server was knocking on the defendant’s door, had confirmed that the defendant was inside the house, and, when the defendant refused to come to the door, attempted service pursuant to Rule 4.04(1) by “plac[ing] the summons and complaint into a clear plastic sleeve and tap[ing] it to the glass front door before leaving the [Defendant’s house].”

(The opinion was silent on whether the process server yelled “You’ve been served!” as he walked away, but I would bet money that he did.)

On these facts, however, Chancellor Lyle found the service ineffective. Rule 4.04(1) provides that if a defendant “evades or attempts to evade service,” then the process server may perfect service of process “by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, whose name shall appear on the proof of service, or by delivering the copies to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the individual served.”

Citing this Rule’s plain language—which expressly imposes a requirement that the summons be left “with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein”—the Judge found that merely taping the summons to the outside of a home does not meet the statutory requirements, even under these circumstances.

(Note: You can read more analysis of this opinion (and see a full copy) by visiting the Nashville Bar Association’s Trial Court Opinion page, which will be updated soon with more notable decisions.)

In a surprise twist, then, Seth Rogen’s stoner private process server turns out to be a highly effective process server whose work would be approved even by Chancellor Lyle (though she may question other aspects about his…demeanor and tactics).

In each instance in the movie clip he, in fact, personally serves each person. We lawyers can be awful to watch movies with, since we love to nit-pick the accuracy of the Hollywood depictions of the job, but this sequence complies with the law (except the part when he’s driving and using illegal substances).

But, other than that–congratulations to Seth Rogen–this clip could be shown in a first-year Civil Procedure class. Who knew?

The 341: Too Busy to Blog, but Listen to this Podcast by Prof. Anthony

You can always tell when I get really, really busy with work: I stop law blogging.

Which is a perfectly reasonable outcome, of course. But, having said that, August was a busy month, so here are some quick notes.

The Tennessee Bar Association interviewed me about starting my own firm during the pandemic. I know we’ve reached peak podcast capacity, but I really enjoy the TBA’s podcasts featuring interesting legal and lawyer stories from across the State. In a time where we’re not seeing each other in court or at events, it’s nice to virtually catch up with what is going on.

I was featured on the TBA’s Sidebar broadcast, and the topic was the decision to leave my long-time law firm to start my own practice. The full episode can be found at this link or by finding Sidebar on SpotifyApple PodcastsGoogle PlayStitcher or TuneIn.

It was a fun podcast, and, to my surprise, I didn’t collapse into a ball of cringe when I listened to it. Yeah, I used the word “pivot” way more than I (believe) I do in real life, but, otherwise, I was pleased with the message.

As many of you know, I have a tendency toward saying more than is sometimes necessary, and I credit my wife’s advance coaching in that regard. Lena is a writer and a master content creator, and she made sure that I kept it reasonably on topic.

Except, of course, for the opening stories: She expressly told me not to talk about the RV trip or the boat. Oh well, I hope you all enjoyed it. (And, if I have kept one person from buying a boat this summer, my personal embarrassment will have been worth it.)

I’m teaching Client Communication at Belmont’s Law School this semester. Part of the reason that my schedule has been so tight is that I am teaching this fall as an Adjunct Professor at Belmont University’s College of Law.

The course focuses on strategies and best practices in communicating with clients, witnesses, and other parties in the legal system, at all stages of the legal process.

A central tenent of my new firm is to focus on providing client-centered service, asking every step of the way: How are we serving our clients and what can we do better? This is the future, and my goal is to share this mind-set with the next generation of lawyers.

For the first week, I pointed out that all them, whether or not they had any law-related work experience, have already communicated with clients. In our modern age, your social media is the first line of communication about who you are, what you do, and whether you can be trusted. (Hence, my wife’s advice to icksnay on the boatsnay).

The first week’s assignment was my age-old advice: Google Yourself. The students were tasked with seeing what results a potential client would find, deciding which ones were good (or bad), and what action they could take to minimize or eliminate the bad ones (like ones complaining about boat ownership in the Nation’s Newspaper).

Hint: Invariably, a person’s LinkedIn page ends up being the highest result (or way up there). My new advice (and part of last week’s assignment): Create a good LinkedIn page for yourself. The best way to decrease the impact of negative information online is to lower that information in the google search results.

If LinkedIn has a fast track to the top of the list, create a LinkedIn page that is so robust with information (name, biography, practice areas, contact information) that a potential client or employer never clicks on your Myspace page from 2007 (an actual top result for one of the students).

I’m two classes in, and, so far, it’s been extremely rewarding and extremely hard work. Hug a teacher, guys, they’re the real heroes.

Side-note: I’ll be back with the law blogging soon–there have been lots of fun new opinions issued.

Two More Sheriffs Sales set for August: Williamson County Commercial Properties

Last week, I wrote about a pending Sheriff’s Sale that I have scheduled for August 3, 2021 on 2137 Maricourt Street, Old Hickory, Tennessee.

A number of you reached out for information on any other sales that I may have pending. Here is information on two Williamson County commercial properties that will be sold at the end of August.

This will be via a Sheriff’s Sale set for August 31, 2021, at 12pm, at the Williamson County Judicial Center, 135 South 4th Avenue, Franklin.

(1) Approximately 2.43 acres, South Carothers Road, Franklin, Tennessee, Map/Parcel No. 079-082.00. This is a wooded lot, immediately next to the Soar Adventure Tower ropes course.

This is an image of the property available from the Williamson County GIS mapping site.

Per the Sale Order, bidding for this tract will start at $51,500.00. The 2020 tax appraisal for this property is $103,000.

(2) Approximately 4.29 acres, Royal Oaks Boulevard, Franklin, Tennessee Map/Parcel 079-023.00. This is also a wooded lot, right off Highway 96, on Royal Oaks Boulevard.

The neighboring property to lot was in the news recently, in the Nashville Post article titled “Franklin apartment property sells for $100M.” In case you’re not a subscriber, my interpretation of the article is that a Los Angeles-based real estate group bought the property immediately next this 4.29 acre lot for One Hundred Million Dollars.

This is an image of the property available from the Williamson County GIS mapping site.

I am not suggesting that this property is worth $100,000,000 (or anywhere close to that number), but, per the Court Order, the opening bid will be $100,000.

Please let me know if you would like additional information on either of these two properties. I am the attorney for the creditor, and, as a result, I will be limited in what information and guidance that I can provide, but I am available to answer questions about the Sheriff’s Sale and the Sheriff’s Sale process. Nothing in this post, of course, is designed to give you legal or factual advice about these sales.

As with all distressed real estate sales, buyer beware, and hire a lawyer.

Tennessee Court of Appeals issues a “must read” opinion on General Sessions appeals

As long-time readers know, some plaintiffs elect to file their lawsuits in General Sessions Court, even if their claims exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional limit. Of course, they’ll ask for damages right up to the max amount of $24,999, which means they’ve shaved off some amount of their claim, in order to get all the other advantages offered in small claims court.

When the plaintiffs voluntarily reduce their claim to satisfy the Sessions jurisdiction limit, they’ll often use that as part of their bargaining leverage, i.e. “if you appeal my judgment, I’ll ask for the higher amount of all my claims in Circuit Court.”

Back in 2014, I talked about that strategy, which is allowed under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-729. That statute says the Circuit Court “shall allow all amendments in the form of action, the parties thereto, or the statement of the cause of action, necessary to reach the merits, upon such terms as may be deemed just and proper. The trial shall be de novo, including damages.”

As noted back then, an actual Amended Complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15 must be filed in order to assert the new claims. No big deal, right?

Well, this brand new case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals makes this maneuver drastically more risky. The opinion was published yesterday, at Chimneyhill Condominium Association v. King Chow, No. W2020-00873-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Apps., July 20, 2021).

In that case, when the defendant appealed the Sessions judgment against it, the plaintiff asserted new and increased claims in Circuit Court against the defendant. Here, the plaintiff did everything procedurally correct: it obtained a Circuit Court Order allowing the filing of an amended complaint; and then filed the claims in an Amended Complaint. Regardless, the trial court allowed the defendant to dismiss its appeal of the Sessions judgment and found, as a result of the dismissal of the appeal, that Plaintiff’s claims in the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that “new claims asserted by a plaintiff who did not appeal a general sessions court judgment will be dismissed upon dismissal of the appeal of the opposing party…” The plaintiff is “the master of his or her complaint” and will be expected to bring all of its claims in the original proceeding.

If certain claims are omitted or the sessions court fails to grant all the relief, then the remedy is for the plaintiff to file its own appeal. In dismissing the new claims, the Court wrote that “it was therefore [plaintiff’s] own decisions that resulted in [plaintiff’s] additional claims being dismissed when [defendant] chose to dismiss his appeal.”

This case is important for several reasons. It’s contrary to long-standing practice and procedure. It appears to divert from the precepts of Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-729 and also the concept of a “de novo” review (i.e. if everything starts anew on appeal, without regard to what happened in the lower court, why shouldn’t the plaintiff get to restate her claim).

In the end, however, this is a procedural strategy that will greatly benefit judgment defendants and catch many judgment creditors by surprise. What’s the fix? I guess a plaintiff with significant additional claims may consider voluntarily dismissing its own claims during the appeal, and then re-filing those claims as a new Complaint.

I know this blog has a creditor-friendly bent, but, regardless, I don’t like the reasoning behind this opinion. I understand what the Court is doing, but it also seems too procedurally clever and doesn’t consider the practical implications that are facing parties on a de novo review in Circuit Court.

The Law is Back! (and pretty much the same as it ever was)

Remember, back in the spring of 2020, when we embraced all the radical changes to the way we practiced law?

All across the country, law firms were closing their offices, sending the staff to work from home, and figuring out how to practice using a laptop, a phone, and really strong wi-fi. No more 4-hour dockets, just to announce an agreed order. Instead, we were doing hearings (and trials!) by Zoom, sitting at hot desks (or in our front bedroom), and figuring out ways to use technology to speed up the legal process for clients.

But lawyers, as a group, aren’t always looking for ways to innovate and “speed up” the legal process. This is an industry where “they way things have always been done” sets a direct course for the ways things will be done.

And so, sure, those early pandemic puff pieces about all the law firm Zoom happy hours made for great fodder in the local business journal in July 2020, but this is July 2021, and it’s time for attorneys and staff to get back to the office. Lawyers are logging off of Zoom and dusting off those old suits. The two hour drive to Court to make a five minute announcement is back.

I love this quote because it’s so true: We are discarding so many of our advances from the past year–things that made perfect sense and saved so much time and legal fees for clients–only to go back “to the way law was practiced when people rode horses to court.”

Why? National legal writer David Lat writes about this in his column about the “Five-Day Office Week.” Lat cites several factors, not the least of which is the sunk cost of long term leases and other hard costs built into the typical law firm. If the firm is paying for all that space, why not make people use it? And, yes, the traditional way of doing things is one of those factors.

Because I live and practice law in Nashville, my frustration about reverting back to the old-timey ways is influenced by, frankly, how much of a mess downtown Nashville can be to conduct business in. E-filing in Davidson County Chancery, Circuit, and General Sessions Courts cuts down on 90% of my trips downtown, but, for that 10%, it literally doesn’t matter what time of day you go: Downtown Nashville is a 24-hour madhouse of construction, beer delivery trucks, parties, and congestion.

In the end, common sense and efficiency may not be the deciding factors. If the Judges, the Court Clerks, and the Administrative Office of the Courts want lawyers to practice law in person, lawyers will have no choice. If law firm managing partners want staff, associates, and partners to physically come downtown, that’s what they’ll do (unless it results in a talent exodus, as predicted by David Lat).

If you want an early clue on where this is heading, though, look at the law firm screenshots showing their recent Zoom meetings and happy hours. In those, the younger associates tend to be working remotely. But, notice the older lawyers’ pictures. They’re generally wearing ties and doing the Zoom calls from their law firm offices.

My take-away? The five day work week is already back. They just haven’t sent you the memo yet.

Homebuyer Beware: Some of the property listings on Zillow are Foreclosures and Sheriff’s Sales

Last year, I had a foreclosure scheduled for a Williamson County property in an “in demand” neighborhood and, somehow, Zillow picked up my Foreclosure Sale Notice and listed my sale on the property’s Zillow page. In April, I wrote a post about the 500 phone calls and emails I received from all over the world, asking about the property.

In fact, I got one today from Detroit.

But, a few minutes later, I got a call about another Zillow listing, this time on a Sheriff’s Sale I’m conducting in August on 2137 Maricourt Street, Old Hickory, Tennessee 37138.

The full Notice of Sheriff’s Sale of Real Property can be found on The Wilson Post’s Public Announcements page. I have no idea how it ended up on Zillow, but anything that generates more potential bidders is good.

As indicated in the Sheriff’s Sale Notice, the property is scheduled for auction at 11:00AM, on August 3, 2021. The Sale Notice contains the terms of sale, including opening bid and the bidding process.

I post here in order provide a quick link to the Notice of Sale, which I’m planning to forward to potential bidders. This should present a great opportunity to a bidder.

In this strong real estate market, there are limited opportunities to find good deals on Middle Tennessee real property. The investors have long figured out foreclosure sales, then they figured out tax sales, and, now, Sheriff’s Sales are the next frontier. Sheriff’s Sales used to be rare–given that the process is fairly complex and confusing (even to lawyers)–but these are becoming more common, given the rise in property values and the unyielding demand for residential real estate.

As Zillow continues to grow into a trusted resource, though, I worry that a typical homebuyer may be lulled into seeing only the upsides of the potential deals listed on Zillow, without fully exploring the risks that distressed asset sales present.

I’m not suggesting that a buyer shouldn’t consider participating in a sheriff’s sale (seriously, please come on August 3), but I am encouraging every caller to educate themselves on the process and to consult with a real estate lawyer in advance.

Bankers: Tennessee Court of Appeals issues opinion on safe practices on handling bank levies.

A few weeks ago, I went to Chancery Court on a conditional judgment motion and part of my presentation to the Judge was to acknowledge how rare it is to be in court on conditional judgment proceedings.

Under Tennessee law, a creditor can get a “conditional judgment” against a non-debtor garnishee (usually an employer or a bank) when the creditor issues a garnishment and the garnishee fails to respond. This conditional judgment is then made a final judgment if the garnishee never responds.

As you can imagine, asking that a bank or an employer be made 100% liable for a debtor’s judgment (regardless of whether the debtor actually works or banks there) tends to get the garnishee’s attention, thus eliminating the need for a hearing. In practice, most banks instantly respond to a conditional judgment.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is screenshot-2021-07-13-061918.png

A few weeks ago, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued an opinion detailing a conditional judgment fight between a judgment creditor and a garnishee bank over an allegedly inaccurate response, at Tullahoma Industries, LLC v. Navajo Air, LLC (No. M2019-02036-COA-R3-CV)(Tenn. Crt. Apps., June 29, 2021).

In that case, US Bank was served with a garnishment and immediately froze all accounts that might be relevant, including accounts in the name of a non-debtor entity, but that was clearly related (same principals, same address) to the debtor and with a very similar name. While the accounts were frozen, the third party’s lawyer sent a demand that the funds be released, pointing out the different entities’ names and different EINs.

After verifying that the debtor and the account holder entity had different tax identification numbers, US Bank released the funds back into the account and answered “no accounts.” In response, the judgment creditor challenged US Bank’s response by filing a Motion to Show Cause (i.e. asking for a conditional judgment for failure to provide an accurate/correct response). The trial court agreed with US Bank, and the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

A recap of the analysis:

  • A judgment creditor’s remedy in response to an inaccurate garnishment response will be to examine the garnishee under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-204.
  • There is some suggestion that moving directly into a “Show Cause” / conditional judgment proceeding is procedurally improper.
  • Instead, the creditor starts with an examination (i.e. discovery) to vet the garnishee’s answer, with the purpose to determine whether the garnishee actually holds (or held) money or property of the judgment debtor.
  • The judgment creditor has the burden of proof that the garnishee holds the debtor’s property.
  • As to bank accounts, a court will not go beyond an analysis of account ownership (i.e. the account name, the tax identification number of the owner). The Bank does not need to inquire into the source of the funds or equitable ownership claims.
  • Even though the Court questioned the procedural path, it appears that the conditional judgment process is appropriate, but only after the examination takes place.

I note that this opinion was authored by Judge Neal McBrayer, a former debtor/creditor lawyer, who does a great job on commercial and real property cases.

This case provides important guidance to all parties. To creditors, it shows the value in naming the correct party-defendant, as well as any related entities, in your original proceeding.

To banks, it provides a great outline in how to process bank levies, including what to do when it’s not entirely clear that the judgment debtor is your account customer. That’s why I get all those calls asking for social security or tax id numbers, dates of birth, and other information like that. Smart banks avoid conditional judgments.

Welcome to Nashville: Property Developers, Bachelorettes, and National Law Firms

The Nashville Post ran a story on Tuesday about the “shifts in the local legal market” and all these national law firms moving to town and scooping up lawyers to create local offices.

It’s a topic that local lawyers have been talking about for a few years, generally in the form of complaints about the out-of-towners coming in, planting a flag (albeit a very fancy flag), and changing the local market in ways that don’t necessarily change it for the better.

And, yes, I fully acknowledge that this is, basically, the “lawyer” equivalent of when long-timer Nashvillians complain about the people from California moving to their neighborhood and running up the home prices.

Last fall, I had a commercial real estate matter with one of these new law firms. The lawyer I dealt with was based out of Phoenix (but, weirdly, always called me from a Miami area code). It was a small deal, but also the most difficult project I worked on last year. Literally, every thing that could be argued about was argued about. To this day, if you are calling from the 305, you are getting my voice-mail (sorry, J-Lo).

For good or bad, it was definitely a different experience, and I worry whether this is what the next 10 years looks like.

I know I sound like those traditionalist lawyers who refuse to acknowledge change and who, last year, probably refused to do Zoom hearings or, years ago, refused to use e-mails.

But, it is going to change the local legal profession.

Lawyers at mega-firms have to bill more to pay for those mega-offices (both in Nashville, but also in NYC, LA, and all of those other “national” cities) and the mega-salaries being offered. More issues get nit-picked, more calls get scheduled, and, slowly, the way you do a deal in Nashville feels more like how you do it in NYC, Chicago, or whatever other of the 20 cities the lawyer you’re dealing with is based out of.

In the end, you have to wonder whether this results in more costs to the client and, if it does, is it worth it? (And, disclaimer, if a huge law firm wants to buy my firm, I will instantly delete this post.)

I had drinks with a couple of local lawyers from other firms a few weeks ago. We talked about office space (still expensive!), some local gossip, and these issues. (Recap: Many of our well-respected-lawyer-friends work at these firms; they are awesome and do good work; we’re just jealous; who is next, etc.)

In the end, one of the other lawyers wrapped it all up with a sly grin: Sure, it’s going to change the Nashville legal market, but there’s a silver-lining. Over the next 3-5 years, it’s going to artificially raise the standard hourly rate for legal work by 33%to 50% for all of us. (And, sure, this was said as a joke, but also as a statement of fact. This is a very good prediction.)

If you’ve lived in Nashville more than 5 years, you’ve heard complaints just like what I’ve said in this post. You’ve also heard the typical response, which points out that the complaining neighbor’s own property value has sky-rocketed due to the hot market. Same goes for lawyers.

We live in interesting times in Nashville.

Don’t Forget This Blog Post (I did): A local court can order an out of county Sheriff to conduct a sheriff’s sale of real property.

I need to pay more attention to this blog. (And not just posting to it.)

A few weeks ago, I had a pretty deep legal discussion with a lawyer for a nearby county on a complex creditor rights question. And, after a few days of comparing research, she sent me a link to my own blog post on the exact same topic.

The bad news is that I spent many hours re-researching the issue. The good news is that I came to the same conclusion.

The issue was whether a Chancery Court in County A can issue an order and a levy to the Sheriff in County B to sell real property located in County B. And this wasn’t just a theoretical discussion–this was my own levy seeking to collect on a judgment.

The issue doesn’t come up much, and my concern was a lingering recollection that, in fact, some actions related to real property *are* limited to the county where the real property is located. That’s the “local action rule,” which requires those actions with a direct and undeniable connection to the land to be brought in that county (examples: title dispute / quiet title actions; detainer actions affecting possession of land; actions seeking money damages for trespass or injury to land). The way that Tennessee cases apply it, however, the local action rule speaks more to a “cause of action” that relates to the specific land at issue, not a general execution against the land.

In the end, here’s why Sheriff B can do it: 

(1)          Execution Sales of Realty are governed by Rule 69.07 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-5-101, and neither contains any county limitations.  My review of Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-1-101 (and all around those statutes) did not reveal any limitation of the Sheriff’s ability to sell real property. We know that a local sheriff can enforce an out-of-county judgment on all other assets (wages/personal property like cars/bank accounts)—if there were a distinction as to real property, wouldn’t it be in those same statutes?

In fact, not only does Rule 69 not contain any exclusions, but it lumps real property in there with the other categories. For instance, in setting what can be levied against, Rule 69.05(1) says that “Property includes a judgment debtor’s realty, personalty, money, wages, corporate stock, choses in action (whether due or not), and court judgments.” (Note that there’s no distinction between the different types of assets.)

For personal property (which we know an out of county Sheriff can do), Rule 69.06 makes no distinction or exception as to the sheriff’s powers (or identification of which county’s sheriff can act).

For real property, Rule 69.07 (the separate rule for “Execution on Realty”) makes no distinction or exception related to which sheriff can take action. Instead, that Rule creates a system by which the creditor “may move” for an order of sale and then, “the sheriff” conducts the sale.

(2)          The Jones v. Helms I wrote about last year remains valid.

In Jones, the creditor held a judgment from Gibson County and filed a Rule 69.07 motion in Gibson County for a sale order, and the Gibson County Court granted the request and ordered the Weakley County Sheriff to sell the land to pay the Sessions judgment.  Rather than recite all the opinion, I’ll just direct you to last year’s post. (And, also, check out: Jones v. Helms, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 517, *8-12, 2020 WL 6806372.)

One of the reasons that I maintain this blog to curate a list of useful opinions for my own practice. Next time, I’ll be sure to check in here first.

11 U.S.C. § 363 may solve my Zillow foreclosure nightmare

Last month, I talked about how my phone has been ringing off the hook about a Williamson County foreclosure I had scheduled in late-2020, at 2113 N Berrys Chapel Road, Franklin, Tennessee 37069.

The sale was cancelled when the corporate owner filed a California Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but Zillow nevertheless has me listed as the sales agent and, ever since, I get at least one phone call a day asking about the property.

After getting three calls about it yesterday, I looked up the status of the Bankruptcy Case, and I see that the bankruptcy trustee has a sale contract on the property!

Per the Motion for Approval of Sale of Real Property [Docket 217], the bankruptcy trustee is proposing a sale of the property for $600,000 (more than $175,000 below the Zillow value). A copy of the full Motion can be viewed below.

Under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363, a bankruptcy trustee can sell non-exempt property of the bankruptcy estate. Here, after payment of all the liens associated with this property, the trustee has determined that this sale will generate proceeds for the benefit of creditors.

If you are reading this and you are one of the hundreds of people who have called me over the past 6 months, don’t despair. Pursuant to Paragraphs 9, 12(g), 14, and 15-17 of the Motion, the trustee will continue to entertain higher offers.

But, please note, any such offers must be presented to the Trustee before the hearing on this Motion on June 14.

A successful sale will fully pay my lender client, but I’m also hopeful that a sale will cause Zillow to remove this property as an active listing and that I’ll stop getting so many phone calls.

While it’s been fun to talk to callers from all over the country about this house and the hot Nashville real estate market, it’s also been a huge waste of my time.

Of course, like any good marketer, I’m making lemons into lemonade…I’m telling all the callers about my upcoming and planned Nashville and Brentwood foreclosures for 2021.

We’ll see if Zillow notices those.