Month: July 2018

7% and Rising: Tennessee’s Post-Judgment Interest Rate Continues to Go Up

About this time last year, I noted that the statutory rate of interest on Tennessee judgments was continuing to increase.  At the time, the rate was 6.25%.

After bumping up to 6.5% in January 2018, it has now risen again to 7.0% (effective July 1, 2018).

As you’ll recall from my post in February 2013, Tennessee switched from a flat-rate of 10% to a variable rate under the (then) new version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-121.

As a creditor, this is great news. As a creditor lawyer, it’s kind of a pain in the neck.

Now, when I’m asked to prepare a payoff, I have to check the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts website to see what the applicable rate is. Then, for any increases or decreases, I have to adjust my math for that time period.

Come See Me, an “All-Star”, Talk on Ethical Online Marketing in November

I’ve gotten a little stingy about my availability for speaking engagements. Long story short, it’s sort of a pain in the neck.

But, I agreed to teach for the Tennessee Attorneys Memo group, because they have the best marketing materials. Specifically, they lead with the line: “The 12th Annual Tennessee Law Conference boasts an all-star cast of prominent Tennessee judges and attorneys, featuring David Anthony, Gail Ashworth, and James Bryan Moseley.”

So, if you give me top billing and refer to me as an all-star, I’m there.

I’m teaching on November 15, 2018, for the section titled “Ethical Online Marketing.” This is a “dual” credit course, meaning you’ll get ethics and general CLE credit. Plus, I am probably the most prolific blogging, tweeting,  and social media’ing lawyer in town. (Edited: Since publishing this post, this assertion has been questioned by a local attorney.)

The real challenge will be keeping people in their seats and paying attention at 4pm, so I plan to super-charge this talk with lots of examples of terrible and/or unethical online marketing examples.

If a Tennessee Plaintiff Fails to State a Valid Claim, a Defendant may be Awarded Attorney Fees

Way back in April 2011, I previewed a new law being considered by the Tennessee legislature, which would provide for recovery of attorney fees to a party who could quickly get its opponent’s lawsuit dismissed for failure to state a claim, notwithstanding the lack of a written contract between the parties that provided for that relief.

I guess this is old news at this point, but here’s the full citation.

As enacted in July 2012, the law can be found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c)(1), which provides in part that:

Notwithstanding subsection (a) or (b), in a civil proceeding, where a trial court grants a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court shall award the party or parties against whom the dismissed claims were pending at the time the successful motion to dismiss was granted the costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in the proceedings as a consequence of the dismissed claims by that party or parties. The awarded costs and fees shall be paid by the party or parties whose claim or claims were dismissed as a result of the granted motion to dismiss.

This, obviously, is a powerful tool to attack meritless claims that fail to state a cause of action under Tennessee law. But, a party seeking relief under this statute must act fast. The statute requires that the motion seeking this relief be filed within sixty (60) days after the moving party received service of the latest complaint, counter-complaint or cross-complaint in which that dismissed claim was made.

Attend the TBA Creditors Practice Forum

The Tennessee Bar Association has asked me to teach at the 2018 Creditors Practice Forum, on September 26, 2018.

This half-day seminar is a well-attended and well-produced CLE event, designed to provide both the basics, as well as some advanced “deep-dives,” into a variety of topics in creditor’s rights practice in Tennessee.

This year, the topics will include presentations on:

  • Charging Orders and Theories of Successor Liability
  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act
  • Bankruptcy Court Stay Violations
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Ethical Considerations

The full agenda can be found here.  Also, lunch is provided. If you’re going to CLE, might as well get a free-ish lunch.

 

 

Borrower Beware: They look like Checks but act like Loans.

Nashville’s Fox 17 news asked me to comment on their news story about lending companies that target low income borrowers.

The news report focused on one lending practice as particularly unscrupulous: the unsolicited check loan. These are sometimes called “live loan” checks.  Maybe you’ve received one in the mail. They look exactly like a check, made payable to you, and all you have to do is take it to your bank and, boom, you’ve got cash.

And…you’ve got a new loan that probably has very bad interest rates and onerous terms.

You can click on the news segment above, but, ultimately, I gave this warning:

There’s no such thing as free money, and so if someone has sent you a check unsolicited in the mail, that’s where your radar should go up. They do take advantage of someone who needs something. They have a resource, cash, that these people over here desperately need.

In the end, I’m sympathetic to the borrower, but also acknowledge a really hard fact: These type of credit vehicles may be the only life-line some borrowers have to pay rent, get medical treatment, or obtain necessary goods and services. And that’s not a problem created by an unscrupulous lender, but a part of the income inequality of modern society.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the lenders here, but I want to make sure that, while most of us are alarmed by these lending practices, we also realize that exposing these practices doesn’t, by itself, solve the deeper issues.

Poor people face a lack of access to funds for essential goods, services, and needs that is completely under-served and ignored. We may scorn the lenders for exploiting that need and call it predatory, but we also lack resources to consider alternate ways to address those needs.

And that’s where I end my tidy little blog post.