Author: David

I am a creditors rights and commercial litigation attorney in Nashville, Tennessee.

Tour of Tennessee Courts: Tips for Rutherford County General Sessions

I enjoy hitting the road and going to courts all over middle Tennessee. But, at the same time, it can be disconcerting to go to court in a new county, which generally has its own Local Rules and customs of practice. No matter how long you’ve been practicing, you never want to embarrass yourself in front of a foreign court.

So, I’m starting a “Tour of Tennessee” blog series, which discusses the different Courts that I go to, along with some tips and tricks for appearances.

First stop, Rutherford County General Sessions Court. Here is a link to the General Sessions Court’s website, which has updated, good information about the Court, including phone number, address, and Clerk information.

Note that the Rutherford County Courts, including General Sessions, post a variety of their  dockets online.  Be sure to print out a copy of the docket before you go to court.

Their Local Rules are also posted online, and read those before you go.

Here are some helpful tips to know from the Local Rules:

  • The Court presumes cases will be tried on the the date they are set, but, on the first setting in civil actions, the  “court may liberally grant a continuance on the first setting of a case.”
  • The Court does not allow “indefinite” continuances. Under Local Rule 5.01, the Court only allows continuances of less than 60 days.
  • The Court will only allow 3 continuances, absent good cause.
  • The Court caps attorney fees at 25%, unless good cause is shown.

Here are a few other things to know:

  • The Judge, Larry Brandon, is sharp, both in his legal acumen, as well as his wit and the way he runs the Courtroom. Stay on his good side by being early, paying attention, and reading the Local Rules before you go.
  • Seriously, that’s important: stay on his good side across the board.
  • Many Clerks are liberal and let you use any old Civil Warrant  forms, but, if you’re in doubt about your form, be sure to use the official Civil Warrant forms from the Rutherford County General Sessions Clerk.  Using the standard form is an important part of staying on the Judge’s and the Clerk’s good side.
  • On street parking is plentiful all around the Courthouse, and there are a number free lots available.
  • General Sessions Court takes place on the third floor of the Courthouse. The General Sessions Clerk is on the first floor.
  • The security line can get long, particularly if you’re running late. Be prepared to remove watches, belts, and other metal items. Attorneys can purchase “pre-screened” pass cards for $5, which allow you to by-pass security. If you go there a lot, keep that in mind.
  • The elevator  gets backed up, and, if you’re running late, head to the stairs in the back of the building.
  • Judge Brandon starts promptly, at 9AM.
  • It’s about a 45 minute drive from downtown Nashville, so give yourself an hour.
  • Cases are generally called in batches, organized by the Plaintiff’s attorney’s name, meaning all of an attorney’s cases are generally bundled together and called at the same time (and then that attorney is allowed time to go to the hall and review the matters or write them up).

Rutherford County General Sessions Court is an active court, often with a large number of cases (40-50) set on one docket. Be early, be prepared, and read the Local Rules, and your court appearance will go fine.

Confessions of Judgment aren’t Valid in Tennessee: Here’s Why

All kinds of search terms lead visitors to this site. I routinely look at them, because it’s a great insight into what creditor rights issues people want to learn about. (And, sometimes, it’s pretty funny.)

A common query is whether confessions of judgments are valid in Tennessee. Frankly, after nearly 15 years of practice in Tennessee, I’ve never dealt with a confession of judgment, so, as a practical matter, I don’t think they are valid in Tennessee. But, recently, I actually came across the answer.

As background, a confession of judgment is a contract provision (or a stand-alone contract) in which one party agrees on the front-end of a transaction to let the other party enter a judgment against him if the deal goes bad.  You agree, in advance and before any default or dispute arises, that the other party can get a judgment, even without a lawsuit pending and despite any legitimate defenses that may ultimately exist.

You can imagine why a creditor would include such a provision in their contracts.

Tennessee doesn’t allow such provisions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-2-101(a) says:

Any power of attorney or authority to confess judgment which is given before an action is instituted and before the service of process in such action, is declared void; and any judgment based on such power of attorney or authority is likewise declared void.

But, an agreement to allow a judgment may be allowed after a lawsuit is filed and after the party is served (when, it would be assumed, the party has received due process of the law and the issues are defined).  § 25-2-101(b) says:

This section shall not affect any power of attorney or authority given after an action is instituted and after the service of process in such action.

So, even though Confessions of Judgment are not valid in Tennessee at the time of the contract, such provisions will be enforceable after the filing of the lawsuit, such as in a forbearance or settlement agreement.

New Opinion Analyzes Common Defenses to Domestication of Foreign Judgments in Tennessee

A good rule of thumb in Tennessee is that a valid foreign judgment will be enforceable here, provided the plaintiffs comply with the procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 26-6-101, et seq.

A new Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion, in Bancorpsouth Bank v. David J. Johnson, et. al. (July 16, 2013), examined both the general law, as well as the potential defenses to domestication. This is a good case to know, since it reviews all aspects of the foreign judgment enrollment process.

First, it presents the three “standard” defenses to domestication:

a forum state may decline to accord full faith and credit to the judgment or public act of another state if it is (1) void due to a lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, (2) based upon fraud, or (3) “where enforcement of the judgment would violate the public policy of the forum state.” …  Tennessee courts have recognized and adopted all three of these exceptions. … (citations omitted)

These defenses aren’t easy to establish, and the Court notes  “a party who seeks to show that a foreign judgment should not be enforced in Tennessee must meet a ‘stern and heavy‘ burden.”

Most attacks on a foreign judgment are under Defense No. 1 (that the judgment is void); this new case is interesting in that is that the Court provides a good analysis of Defense Nos. 2 and 3 (which no other case that I’ve seen has done).

Defense No. 2, Fraud:  “[T]o deny full faith and credit on the basis of fraud, there must be allegations of extrinsic fraud, that is, fraud that is collateral to questions which were either determined or which could have been determined in the underlying action. Extrinsic fraud is contrasted with intrinsic fraud, which pertains to an issue involved in the underlying action or where the acts allegedly constituting fraud were or could have been litigated…”

“‘[E]xtrinsic fraud ‘consists of conduct that is extrinsic or collateral to the issues examined and determined in the action,’. . . while intrinsic fraud is fraud within the subject matter of the litigation, such as forged  documents produced at trial or perjury by a witness.”

An example of extrinsic fraud is a party lying to the other party about the court date or committing some fraud regarding the litigation (something beyond the allegations of the lawsuit). Intrinsic fraud would be some fraud related to or contained in the allegations of the lawsuit, such as a fraudulent signature on the note at issue.

Defense No. 3, Public Policy:  “Under the public-policy exception to full faith and credit, “Tennessee courts are not obligated to give full faith and credit to any judgment of a state which we hold to be violative of Tennessee’s public policy or the Federal Constitution.”

This is rare, however: “The principle of giving full faith and credit to the judgments of sister states will “almost invariably” outweigh the interest of an individual state; the public-policy exception to full faith and credit is applied only on ‘extremely rare occasions.'”

While the Court doesn’t provide examples, the Defendants’ argument is illustrative. Here, they argued that the foreclosure that resulted in the deficiency balance at issue in the lawsuit was improper, and it was an issue that Tennessee has a defense for, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118.

The Court saw this as an improper attempt to re-litigate potential defenses under the underlying judgment, not some public policy that rendered the out-of-state judgment unenforceable.

Most cases cite the three major defenses, and this new opinion is significant because it provides helpful analysis of what constitutes those defenses.

Tennessee Secretary of State to launch new online UCC filing system on July 1, 2013

The ability to file documents online is one of the many ways technology has made the practice of law easier. Faced with a looming deadline, attorneys no longer need to rush to the Courthouse before closing time. Nowadays, they pdf their pleading and can upload it at 11:59 from home.

Starting on July 1, 2013, the Tennessee Secretary of State will allow parties to make Tennessee Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings online. Information about this program can be found in this release.

To prepare Tennessee UCC filers for this process, the Secretary of State has posted a number of links to a number of training videos, which cover topics such as:

  • Filing a Tennessee UCC1 Financing Statement
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC3 Amendment – Termination
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC3 Amendment – Continuation
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC3 Amendment – Party Update
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC3 Amendment – Assignment
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC3 Amendment – Collateral and Max Indebtedness Change
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC5 Information Statement
  • Filing a Tennessee UCC11 Information Request
  • Searching the Tennessee UCC Database

The electronic filing system also coincides with the implementation of the 2010 Amendments to UCC Article 9, which also become effective on July 1, 2013. I’ll discuss those in a later post.

For now, I’ll say that I’m really excited about the prospect of filing and searching UCC records online. This is a great development for Tennessee lawyers.

Post-It Note: Creditor’s Rights During Bankruptcy

As many of you know, I’ll occasionally use this blog as a place to post reminders or cites to cases for my own benefit. As you’ve seen in the past, I call those entries “Post-It Notes.”

I saw this CLE seminar and thought the content would be helpful (plus, it’s a good outline for any future Creditor’s Rights CLEs I might teach). It’s presented by NBI Seminars and is called “Creditor’s Rights in Bankruptcy.” It’s set for July 31, 2013.

Here’s the Agenda:

 

  • Case Evaluation
    • 10 Questions to Ask Before Getting Started
    • Important Timeline Considerations
    • Determining the Priority of Claims
  • Miscellaneous Creditors’ Rights
    • The Involuntary Bankruptcy as a Collection Remedy
    • Examination of Debtor’s Affairs
    • Rule 2004 Exams
    • Creditors’ Committees in Chapter 11 Cases
    • Dismissal or Conversion of a Bankruptcy Case
    • Appointment of and Communication With a Trustee or Examiner
    • Recovery of Property for the Benefit of Creditors
    • Municipal Collection Issues
  • Ethical Representation During Bankruptcy

    • Collection Letters and Communication With the Debtor
    • Misrepresentation
    • Intermingling Activities of Collection Agency and Attorney
    • Harassment
    • Attorneys’ Fees
    • Avoiding Violations of the Injunction
  • Overview of Creditors’ Rights Under Each Chapter
    • Chapter 7
    • Chapter 13
    • Chapter 12
    • Chapter 11
    • When the Debtor Converts From a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7 Case
    • Significance of Valuation of Collateral
  • Claims and Distributions
    • Filing and Allowance of Claims
    • Objections to Discharge
    • Objections to Confirmation
    • Dealing With Objections to Claim
    • Distribution to Creditors
    • UCC Filing
    • What to do When the Debtor Defaults on the Repayment Plan
    • Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers
    • Reaffirmation Agreements
  • Automatic Stay
    • Broad Scope of the Automatic Stay
    • Obtaining Relief From the Automatic Stay
    • Motion for Lift of Stay: How, Why You Can Request It
    • Changes in the Automatic Stay in Consumer Cases Involving Repeat Filers
    • Changes in the Automatic Stay in Certain Other Limited Situations Involving Liens on Real Estate
    • Changes in the Automatic Stay Involving Consumer Landlord/Tenant Law
    • Exceptions to the Automatic Stay and Related Changes
    • Monetary Sanctions for Automatic Stay Violation Where Notice is Lacking
  • Representing Creditors in Adversary Proceedings
     
  • Special Rights in Particular Property
    • Reclamation Rights
    • Setoffs
    • Landlords and Equipment Lessors

 

New Trial Opinion on Tennessee Post-Foreclosure Deficiency Statute Shows a Creditor-Friendly Trend in Interpreting “Materially Less”

A few months ago, I argued the first appellate case construing Tenn. Code Ann.  § 35-5-118, which is the new Tennessee post-foreclosure deficiency judgment statute. As you may recall from my blog post about the new law, the statute provides a possible defense to a deficiency action, where the debtor can show “by a preponderance of the evidence that the property sold for an amount materially less than the fair market value…”

In layman’s terms, a foreclosed borrower may be able to avoid a judgment for the remaining debt if he can show that the foreclosure buyer drastically under-bid at the foreclosure.

All across the state, this statute has resulted in two fights:

  1. What was the fair market value at the time of the foreclosure? and
  2. Was the foreclosure sale price “materially less” than the fair market value?

A big problem under the statute has been that “materially less” isn’t defined in the statute or anywhere else in Tennessee law.

In the resulting GreenBank v. Sterling Ventures  opinion, the Court of Appeals issued a bank-friendly interpretation,  offering guidance as to what “materially less”  means by saying that a sale price of 86% is not “materially less.”

I’ve heard from a number of bank lawyers since that opinion, complaining that 86% isn’t low enough. I’ve told them, just wait, the Sterling Ventures opinion didn’t set the “floor;” there is room in the statute for lower values, which will be established in future cases (in the Sterling Ventures case, the bid at issue was 88-91%, so it didn’t require the Court to define the lowest possible percentage).

This past week, my firm received another favorable  opinion from the Williamson County Chancery Court. In this Opinion (click to review), the Court recognized this issue, and rightfully upheld lower percentage bid amounts. The Court, following the lead of the Court of Appeals, cites the Holt v. Citizens Central Bank case, which recognized that a 50% recovery at foreclosure is a customary result.

While this doesn’t suggest that 50% is the magic number/floor percentage, this analysis shows a judicial tendency in interpreting the statute at a lower range than most debtors have argued.

With any new law, it takes a few decisions to “battle test” how it works. So far, the parameters of Tenn. Code Ann.  § 35-5-118 are being defined in a way that favors creditors.

Contingent Fees: The Good, The Bad, and The Reason Many Lawyers Don’t Handle Them

Generally, a client pays a lawyer for his services by the hour, which is exactly what it sounds like. If a lawyer with an hourly rate of $250 does an hour’s worth of work, then the client owes the lawyer $250.

In some instances, a lawyer will handle a matter on a contingency fee basis, which means that the fee is paid only if there is a favorable result (i.e. “I don’t get paid unless YOU win”). The exact fee is calculated as a percentage of the amount of money recovered in the case.

Because I do creditor’s rights law, I’m sometimes asked to handle matters on a contingent fee. With the economy being where it is, however, I’m far less likely to accept creditor cases on this agreement. With so many people broke, the possibility of payment is lower than ever and the fight to get that money is harder than ever.

Proponents of contingency fees argue that they provide access to lawyers and the justice system for people who, otherwise, couldn’t afford lawyers (and that expensive hourly rate). That’s true.

My experience with accepting clients on a contingency fee billing is that those clients–i.e. the ones who are not paying for every phone call, every email, every step of the litigation–are the ones who have the most unreasonable demands of my time. Paying good money for an hour long phone call has a good way of discouraging any unnecessary hour long phone calls. If a nasty fight on an inconsequential issue doesn’t cost them anything, well, of course, they want you to fight on that issue.

When a client asks me to take a collections case on a contingent fee basis, I’m generally pretty frank with them in response. I explain the factors I consider: (a) how much actual work will  be required; (b) whether the defendant has lots of assets;  and (c) whether payment of the claim will be very quick. In short, it’s only a good deal for  the lawyer if it’s going to be a windfall involving not much work and a quick payment.

In this economy, it’s rare to find the collections referral that pays quickly and without much effort. In a contingency fee case, the risk of nonpayment rests entirely on the lawyer’s shoulders. From a client’s perspective, the risk is that a lawyer is going to lose motivation to work on a case over a long duration when it doesn’t produce results (i.e. money).

My advice to lawyers is to be careful on these types of cases; my advice to the clients would be the same.

Last Chance to Learn: Creditors’ Rights in Tennessee: 10 Collection Strategies

A quick reminder: Tomorrow, June 6, 2013, I’ll be teaching the CLE  presented by M. Lee Smith Legal Publishers called Creditors’Rights in Tennessee: 10 Collection Strategies.

This is a one hour audio seminar, that will cover the usual Tennessee collections lawyer song and dance. Things like:

  • Things to consider prior to declaring a loan in default and filing a collections lawsuit
  • Issues in deciding between Chancery Court and General Sessions Court
  • Importance of knowing your Statute of Limitations
  • Making sure you Sue the Right Party
  • Judgment Liens and why they work
  • Fraudulent Transfers
  • Overview of bankruptcy issues, including preferences and Trustee avoidance actions
  • Common roadblocks to collecting money, including domestication of foreign judgments

It’s one hour of CLE credit, and, hopefully, what I teach you during seminar will put some money in your clients’ pockets.

New Tennessee Legislation Imposes Contempt Sanctions on Judgment Debtors Who Don’t Notify Creditors of New Employment

As a creditor rights attorney, I’m always looking for new developments in the law that gives me any advantage.

Recently, I saw that the Tennessee Legislature is considering a new law that gives creditors an unfair advantage.

I’m talking about Public Chapter 187, on wage garnishments, which would create the new Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-225. The statute provides, in part, that:

… A judgment debtor whose salaries, wages or other compensation are subject to a garnishment shall notify the judgment creditor who filed the writ of garnishment within ten (10) days, as computed in § 1-3-102, of obtaining any new employment. Notice to the judgment creditor shall be by certified mail and shall include the name, address and telephone number of the new employer. A judgment debtor who fails to provide notice of new employment in compliance with this section is in contempt of court and, upon the court making a determination of contempt, may be punished the same as contempt of court in a judicial proceeding. …

Under this proposed law, any debtor whose wages are being garnished must notify the creditor within 10 days, via certified mail, of any new employment.

As a creditor’s lawyer, sure, I understand why this law would be helpful: when a debtor switches jobs it can take months for me to figure out where they work. But, I’m surprised that  the Legislature would waste this energy to get involved in this collections cat-and-mouse game.

Frankly, even noting my creditor-friendly bias, I think this law goes a little far. An affirmative requirement that  the debtor send written notice, via certified mail, seems so onerous that I predict that a General Sessions Court would hesitate to impose h a contempt charge.

This is just a strange law, all around.