Month: October 2021

Nashville Bar Association’s Second Trial Court Opinion Is Live: Full Case Copies Found Here

For the past 6 months, I’ve served as an editor for the Nashville Bar Association’s Notable Trial Court Opinion newsletter.

The purpose of this publication is to find interesting, novel, and useful opinions from the District Courts in the Middle District of Tennessee and from the trial courts in Davidson County, Tennessee. Specifically, my job is to review and write about the opinions from the Davidson County Circuit Court and Chancery Court Judges.

Sure, we all know that the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Tennessee Court of Appeals are the standard bearers in defining “what the law is” in Tennessee.

But, having said that, the trial courts are the first (and sometimes only) place that weird and first-impression issues in Tennessee law are examined, and seeing specific instances of how the trial courts are interpreting statutes and case precedent is critical for Tennessee litigators.

Most court rulings never get appealed, and, without a project like this, Middle Tennessee lawyers miss out on most of the good decisions that are relevant to their practices. The goal of this project is to find those opinions and share them with members of the bar.

We’re on the second edition, and a number of you have asked to see actual copies of a few of the underlying opinions.

The first case is Nissan North America, Inc. v. West Covina Nissan, LLC, et. al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 16-883-BC. Memorandum and Order Excusing [Witness] from In-Person Attendance at Trial entered July 1, 2021. This case is notable because it provides a useful blueprint of the factors that a Tennessee court will consider when faced with a request to allow remote testimony under Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 43.01.

nissan-north-america-v-west-covina-mor-ruling-on-electronic-testimony-for-def-m-schrageDownload

Another case that was featured is Robert L. Baker, et. al. v. Brett Eldredge, et. al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 20-445-III. Memorandum and Final Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and Dismissing Case with Prejudice entered on December 23, 2020. A number of you have asked for a copy of this case, which is a cautionary tale about how one party can modify an at-will contract by unilateral performance, where the other party fails to object to the non-conforming performance.

baker-v-eldredge-mor-final-rule-on-cross-sjDownload

As you can see from the September 2021 edition, these are just a small sample of the cases we discuss, but these are the two cases that I’ve had a number of requests to post.

And, as always, if you see a trial court decision that’s really good, please send it my way.

Pending Judicial Foreclosure: Williamson County residential property

This isn’t going to turn into a real estate listing blog, but a number of you have asked me to keep you posted when I set interesting properties for sale.

Well, I’ve got an interesting one coming up for a Williamson County residential property in Concord Hunt (a very nice neighborhood) that will be sold on November 4, 2021.

The property is 9185 Monarch Court, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027, which Zillow says is worth $1,323,100. Who knows if that is accurate, but I can’t wait for an actual property owner to use the “Sell your home to Zillow” feature and we see if Zillow puts their money where their site is.

Per the Zillow information, the house was built in 2005, is in a phenomenal school district, and, based on my site visit, is vacant.

My bank client is the second priority lien holder. This is a “judicial foreclosure” because the third-priority lien holder is the United States government. As a result, any sale will be subject to the approval and confirmation of the Williamson County Chancery Court. Per my Sale Order, I’ll handle getting the sale approved.

The sale will occur on Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 11:00 o’clock a.m., at the property address.

Please let me know if you would like additional information on this property. 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 judicial foreclosure sale and the court approval 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.

Foo Fighters’ Nashville Lawsuit provides important lesson on allocating risks in contracts

When COVID first hit, lawyers talked about how future contracts would evolve to anticipate the special challenges presented by a global pandemic.

Now, 19 months in, a new Davidson County Chancery lawsuit filed on behalf of the Foo Fighters shows that–even with all the planning in the world–COVID is still disrupting the best laid plans.

The plaintiff (the touring company that books gigs for the band) alleges that defendant hired the Foo Fighters to perform at an August 13, 2021 corporate event for payroll processing company ADP. The parties entered entered into a April 5, 2021 written agreement. Per the contract, the band would receive $3,000,000 for the performance, with half paid when the contract was signed, and the other half paid at (or before) the event.

But this contract was updated to take into account all the lessons learned during a global pandemic.

Per Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, if the defendant defaults or cancels the performance for any reason, the band would receive the full performance payment (regardless of whether the band actually plays the show).

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, it’s clear that concerns about COVID played a large role in the negotiations. In fact, the parties included a section called “COVID CANCELLATION,” which–as you’d guess–allocated the risk of a forced cancellation due to the pandemic.

And, boy-oh-boy, was that risk apportioned squarely onto the plaintiff:

In short, if the contracted for event were to be deemed unsafe and impossible due to the resurgence of COVID, this provision says that it does not matter. The band, in their “sole reasonable discretion,” can terminate the obligation and refuse to perform…and still get paid.

Was COVID a “force majuere” event? The band says that they expressly removed the reference to COVID in that paragraph, and further allege this:

There’s a bit more to the story, but, in short, COVID didn’t go away, and this August 2021 event at Mile High Stadium in Denver became less and less of a good idea for the ADP corporate event.

They discussed limited capacity, the band offered to do an exclusive live-stream concert, but, on August 4, 2021 (9 days before the event), the defendant decided to cancel the event. The lawsuit points out that “there was no local, state, or other governmental restriction that required the cancellation of the Event” and, helpfully, points out a number of other large concerts and events that happened that weekend in or near Denver.

The Foo Fighters have sued for the $1,500,000 owed under the Agreement. (And I tend to agree with their analysis of the contract.)

It’s an interesting case. On the most superficial level, it shows that, no matter how hard you try, it’s hard to contract around the unexpected.

In April 2021, my own family was so exuberant about the vaccines and a COVID-free summer (and fall) that we surprised our kids with shockingly expensive Jonas Brothers tickets to celebrate the end of the pandemic. In April, my wife and I believed we had weathered the storm and that a sold out concert in September 2021 was a totally safe and reasonable reward for our kids. We went, but we were terrified taking our vaccinated kids to the show.

I have to wonder if the defendants, here, suffered from a similar bit of vaccine optimism.

Nevertheless, the Foo Fighters’ lawyers did not share that optimism; or, if they did, they included sufficient terms in the contract to assign the burden of any risk squarely on the other party.

From what I’ve seen of it, it’s a good contract. Who knew we’d be learning some lessons about contract law from the Foo Fighters?