David

Not all tenants are agents of their landlords, says Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-102(d)

When a mechanic’s lien claimant sits down with their attorney to file a mechanic’s lien on real property, the attorney generally leads with the same, initial question: Was your contract directly with the owner or did you deal with a general contractor? The lien laws can take drastically different paths, based on the answer.

But, what if the contractor says: Neither, I dealt with the tenant.

In that case, it depends.

In the past, I’ve generally included a broad allegation that the tenant acted as the owner’s agent for the improvements, based on a few old common law cases.

In 2007, the legislature enacted Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-102(d), which restricted the lien claimant’s ability to assert a lien “unless the lessee is deemed to be the fee owner’s agent.”

This new statute requires a far more detailed showing from mechanic lien claimants. In determining whether the tenant acted as the owner’s agent, the statute states that “the court shall determine whether the owner has the right to control the conduct of the lessee with respect to the improvement…” Further, the Court “shall consider” the following four factors:

Whether the lease requires the lessee to construct a specific improvement on the fee owner’s property;
Whether the cost of the improvement actually is borne by the fee owner through corresponding offsets in the amount of rent the lessee pays;
Whether the fee owner maintains control over the improvement; and
Whether the improvement becomes the property of the fee owner at the end of the lease.

So, to be clear, it’s no longer of simply alleging that a tenant was the owner’s agent. Instead, there is now a clear(er) statutory framework that must be followed.

Simply having a landlord tenant relationship isn’t enough to impute agency for lien purposes. This statute appears to require that the tenant truly acted at the direction of the landlord.

While there haven’t been any Tennessee cases on this statute, legal commentaries have described this as setting a fairly high burden on parties claiming a lien. This may reflect the fairly conservative nature of the Tennessee legislature, but, given the specific text, I’m betting our courts will enforce it as written.

Tennesee Legislature Expands Hours for Foreclosures

It’s always a surprise when I take a quick glance at a statute and discover a discrete, subtle change.

For instance, today, I was scheduling a foreclosure sale.

For years, the statute on “when” you could conduct the sale (Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-109) has said that a sale can be made on “any day Monday through Saturday” and “between the hours of ten o’clock a.m. (10:00 a.m.) and four o’clock p.m. (4:00 p.m.)” (excluding state or federal legal holidays).

Apparently, in 2017, the legislature changed Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-109 to expand the time of day you can do a sale. Now, you can conduct sales “between the hours of nine o’clock a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and seven o’clock p.m. (7:00 p.m.).”

Sometimes, the legislature works in mysterious ways. I have no idea why this was law was changed.

I understand the utility of allowing sales earlier in the day, but why allow them to be as late as 7pm at night? Who demanded this?

Oh well. I guess the good news is that I can coordinate my future foreclosures in Shelby County with the tip off for a Memphis Grizzlies game.

Will an Adversary Proceeding Survive the Dismissal of the Bankruptcy Case? Maybe.

Eight years ago (8 years! You are reading a law blog that has lasted for 8 years!), I talked about the difference between a bankruptcy discharge and a dismissal.

The tl;dr version for creditors? Discharge is bad; dismissal is good.

But, what if you’re a creditor and the debtor has filed an adversary proceeding against you, but then the bankruptcy case is dismissed?

The tl;dr version? It depends.

Generally, the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case results in the dismissal of related adversary proceedings because federal jurisdiction is “premised upon the nexus between the underlying bankruptcy case and the related proceedings.” But, there are exceptions.

One such exception is for proceedings to enforce sanctions and contempt for violation of the automatic stay. A Bankruptcy Court will retain jurisdiction “for the purpose of vindicating the court’s own authority and to enforce its own orders.” See In re Bankston, 1:12-BK-14022-SDR, 2015 WL 6126440, at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015)

Basically, the reasoning goes, an action for contempt of court resulting from a party’s blatant disregard of the Bankruptcy Code and the authority of the Bankruptcy Court is something that the Bankruptcy Court takes very seriously and will enforce, independent of whether the underlying case still exists.

The reasoning is different for other types of proceedings that are dependent on the underlying case, like actions to recover avoidance preferences.

Courts Revisit, and Affirm, Requirement of Possessory Bond in Eviction Appeals

Here’s a quick reminder about appeals of detainer and eviction judgments in Tennessee.

Remember, a tenant who loses in General Sessions has the right to appeal that detainer judgment. But, in order to retain the property, that tenant has to post a bond equal to one year’s rental value of the real property.

But, what if the tenant files an appeal and doesn’t post that giant bond (or otherwise find a dummy to sign off on the bond as surety)?

The Tennessee Supreme Court waded into these waters in an opinion from December 2013 and said that a detainer appeal without the “one year rent” bond is still an effective appeal, but it doesn’t help the defendant in any way in keeping the property.

Earlier in the summer, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued another opinion on that issue. In that opinion, the Court noted that the appeal bond requirement to retain possession applies to appeals as noted under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130(b)(2), as well as petitions for writs of certiorari under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-129.

This is an obscure part of the law, but lots of Courts are covering this ground and reaching the same conclusion.

Last note: If the tenant is only appealing the monetary part of the judgment, no possessory bond is needed to have an effective appeal.

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.

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.

Disagree Without Being Disagreeable: Accepting Bad News From a Judge with a Smile

In March, I suggested/implied/explicitly promised to provide professional lawyer advice to you all. Sorry for the delay.

I saw this tweet recently, though, and I am reminded of an important lesson for you litigators out there…

Litigation often requires you to listen to a bad conclusion without complaining at the moment. Like when you’re at a client dinner and the client picks the worst wine on the list, miserably describes it, and then we pay for it. #JustLetMeOrder

— Big Law Associopath (@BLAssociopath) July 22, 2018

No, not the part about the client dinners.

The part about how, as the Judge recites his or her oral ruling, you have to sit there, listening, and taking furious notes. And, no matter how wrong the Judge gets the decision, at the end, you have to politely smile and thank her for the ruling and consideration.

Side Note: Don’t get me wrong, if there is more argument to be made, you present that argument as quickly and respectfully as you can. If the Judge clearly gets the facts or case law wrong, then you have point that out and see if you can get them to change course.

But, here, I’m not talking about that situation. I’m talking about situations where you’ve argued your position so thoroughly and completely that the Judge has no question about the substance of your surely awesome and unassailable legal theory, but nevertheless rules against you.

In that case, my advice is to learn how to take exact and detailed notes, smile, thank the Judge for their time, and then appeal or attack the ruling (if necessary).

A few months ago, I won a hotly contested hearing and, obviously, my opposing counsel lost. And he disagreed with the Judge. A lot. And it showed. His tone toward the Judge expressed frustration, anger and condescension. To avoid any confusion, after his final efforts to get the Judge to change her mind, he threw his argument notes down on the counsel table with an audible sigh.

Don’t ever be that guy.

One, I refuse to ever acknowledge defeat, even in the face of clear defeat. Instead, I go back to the office and confidently call the other lawyer, tell them we’re preparing an appeal, and try to settle. I mean, what else can you do?

Two, judges don’t like being disrespected, and, if this Judge had any doubt in her mind about her ruling, this definitely erased that.

Finally, when you express anger or frustration at the judge, you’re showing a lack of tact and professionalism to everybody in Court, including opposing counsel. Plus, this Judge is going to remember this lawyer.

This is always a fine line to walk, between preserving your reputation for being respectful toward the court and zealous advocacy. I’m sure the lawyer’s client would have appreciated the show, but, in the end, there are definitely down-sides to an emotional outburst.