General Sessions Court Refresher

One of the great things about blogging about esoteric issues that come up in my law practice is that, sometimes, I get to consult myself when a legal issue arises.

Like, right now, when I’m preparing for a Davidson County General Sessions trial that starts in an hour, and I’m trying to remember what Tennessee statute allows you to exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional limit in small claims court.

It’s Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-501, which allows you to exceed $25,000 in calculating a judgment, where the excess amount is comprised of attorneys fees (and/or court costs and/or discretionary costs).

So, thanks a lot, Creditor Rights 101.

Sometimes, I use Google for Legal Research

I received an e-mail from a potential client this week that sort of confused me. Frankly, I didn’t know the answer.

The dispute related to a term I hadn’t seen before. The issue involved a check that his bank had returned, unpaid, to the other bank as “Return to Maker.” When I saw that, I went around the other bank lawyers. That’s my real “first step in researching weird legal issues”–asking the older bank lawyers if they’ve ever seen this.

When they either hadn’t (or weren’t at their desks), well, I consulted Google.

And, sure, you’re probably thinking that a lawyer shouldn’t admit to googling legal questions, but you’re wrong. Google is great to get general answers or concepts, before digging down on Westlaw.

In fact, I suspect Google is how the readers of this blog got here. But, Google can’t be entirely trusted, and you have to consider the legitimacy and trust-worthiness of the source when you click on the results.

So, yes, I found out that “return to maker” means, generally, that the payor bank has reason to deny the check due to a suspicion that the negotiable instrument has been forged, modified, or is generally unsure of the legitimacy. That note instructs the drawee bank to revisit the issue with their customer.

With that information (and before I gave out any legal advice), I did that deep dive on Westlaw  to confirm my analysis under Tennessee’s UCC adoption of Article 3.

So, there you have it. If a lawyer denies using Google, don’t believe them.

 

Presenting at 2017 Family Law Forum: The Life Cycle of a Divorce

As you all know, I regularly speak at Continuing Legal Education seminars for lawyers on topics related to foreclosure, bankruptcy, and other creditor rights issues in the law.

Well, to my surprise, the Tennessee Bar Association has asked me to talk about family law, at its annual Family Law Forum: The Life Cycle of a Divorce, on May 24, 2017.

Now, before you prepare your expert-level questions about parenting plans and in futuro alimony, please know that I’m speaking on Social Media legal issues in family law matters, including things that lawyers must warn their clients against.

I’m an expert on that, because I’ve been law tweeting actively for eight years at @creditorlaw, and my firm has only asked me to delete two tweets. That’s basically a perfect track record.

And, just in case one of you do that thing where you ask presenters weirdly complicated questions, I’ve enlisted Phil Newman, a great lawyer who I refer all family law matters, to serve as my co-presenter.

I’ll post more details later.

Interpleaders: The Only Time People Like to Hear from Me

When people ask me what kind of law that I do, I always end my answer with “Generally, it’s bad news if you’re hearing from me.” In fact, if you’re reading this right now on a computer, look at my bio over to the right.

If you’re on a phone, I’ll help. It says: “It’s probably bad news if you’re hearing from him.

Recently, though, I’ve been spreading good news, because I’m filing a bunch of interpleader lawsuits.

Interpleader actions are filed by plaintiffs who are asking for court direction as to who to send cash or other property to. The typical situation arises after a foreclosure, when the foreclosure attorney sells the property for more than the debt owed, and there are multiple parties who can make a claim for those excess proceeds.

Generally, the deed of trust is pretty clear as to who gets the money, but, sometimes, it’s not clear or the situation is contentious. To be safe, you file an Complaint for Interpleader under Rule 22, name all the parties who have, or may have, a claim to the proceeds, and ask the Court to decide. This way, the judge gets to make the hard decision, and the foreclosure attorney (often the substitute trustee) isn’t exposed to future lawsuits alleging he paid the money to the wrong party.

Under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 22.02, the attorney files the lawsuit, later deposits the money with the Court, and, then, the filing attorney can be dismissed while the remaining parties fight over the money.

So, back to my phone calls this week. I was calling my “Defendants” to tell them that I was getting ready to sue them, but, “don’t worry, it’s a good lawsuit.”

 

Attend the Creditors Practice Annual Forum 2016, Learn Foreclosure in an Hour!

On September 28, 2016, some of the greatest creditor minds in Nashville will gather for the Creditors Practice Annual Forum 2016. Yes, I’m talking about foreclosures again.

Topics to be covered include:

  • Perfection and Enforcement of Liens for Prime and Remote Contractors
  • Non-Judicial Foreclosures in Tennessee
  • Ethical Issues Related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • TBA Special Committee on the Evolving Legal Market Report

I’ll be presenting the Foreclosures portion of the seminar, which will give a one-hour overview all the laws, defenses, and issues facing lenders conducting foreclosures in Tennessee.

This should be a good seminar, so be sure to sign up to attend the live presentation, or use some of your free CLE credits from your Tennessee Bar Association membership to watch it online.

 

Ex-Tennessee Titan Sued by Former Landlords for Property Damage

Real Estate is hot in Nashville. That’s not a news flash. In fact, unless you were burned in the economic downtown, you’ve probably always thought that real estate is a safe investment, either has an appreciating asset or as an income producing asset.

With high-end real estate, the income possibilities in this current market are endless. Short term rentals to tourists on AirBNB. Long term leases to health care executives. Leases to country music stars or professional athletes.

Well, one Nashville couple has learned the hard way that leases to star football players may require a greater security deposit.

In a lawsuit filed against former Tennessee Titan running back Zach Brown, a landlord for rental property has sued in Nashville’s Davidson Chancery Court (Rental Lawsuit), alleging failure to pay rent. After they were awarded a judgment in a prior detainer action, they were surprised to find the property in terrible condition, the lawsuit alleges.

The $59,286.85 in damages alleged includes claims of: animal teeth marks on staircases and doors; stains on carpet; “damage to the walls by what appears to be repeated throws of footballs and darts;” holes in the wall; and door frame damage “from where it appears a locked door was forced open.”

These are just allegations, but, long story short, a property owner opens the door to deterioration and damage when he or she rents to a stranger. There’s no such thing as easy money, and the landlord / tenant model has its fair share of risks.

 

 

 

The Doctrine of Prior Suit Pending is What it Sounds Like

Sometimes, legal concepts have names that make no sense. “Qui Tam” Actions. “Quiet Title” Complaints. “Res Judicata.” “Equitable Subrogation.”

In other cases, the concepts have straight-forward names. Like “prior suit pending,” which is a concept that I’ve never specifically researched, but always felt like I understood–based solely on its name.

Yesterday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Rafia Khan v. Regions Bank, et. al., No. E2015-01891-COA-R3-CV, May 25, 2016,  that explains the elements of this concept.

And, you’ll be pleased to know, it’s as simple as it sounds: “The doctrine of prior suit pending is well-established in Tennessee law and provides that a lawsuit is subject to dismissal where a prior lawsuit involves the same parties and subject matter.” See West v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 618, 620 (Tenn. 2008).

There are four elements:

  1. the lawsuits must involve identical subject matter;
  2. the lawsuits must be between the same parties;
  3. the former lawsuit must be pending in a court having subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute; and
  4. the former lawsuit must be pending in a court having personal jurisdiction over the parties.

When considering whether the subject matter is the same, the Court wrote, this analysis “applies not only to issues actually raised in the first suit, but also to issues that could have been raised regarding the same subject matter.”

In short, the defense is as simple as it sounds: Where a prior lawsuit exists on the same factual and legal issues, a litigant may be able to dismiss any subsequent lawsuit on those same issues (or closely related issues that could have been raised).

Keep in mind, however, that lawyers tend to give simple concepts complex names, but this one must have just slipped past.