Creditors Rights Tennessee – Page 2

This Defective Foreclosure Was the Scariest Thing I Saw on Halloween

I’ve called Tennessee’s non-judicial foreclosure process “a little scary.” It follows a byzantine process, is all paperwork, there’s no judge involved, and a single misstep can lead to your foreclosure being challenged.

Tennessee offers a unique pitfall for the unwary: It’s a “two track” state, meaning that a foreclosing lender must satisfy the requirements of both the Tennessee foreclosure statutes and the requirements agreed to by the parties in the Deed of Trust.

And those two tracks don’t always align.

On that note, let me tell you about the sale of a multi-million dollar property I watched on October 31 .

The Notice of Foreclosure Sale was first published in the Nashville Ledger on October 11, 2024 , and the sale was set for October 31, 2024 at 10AM at the Davidson County Courthouse.

That’s a tight timeline, since Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(b) requires that “The first publication shall be at least twenty (20) days previous to the sale.” In fact, by my own math, the 10/31 sale date fell on the twentieth day after publication, and I wondered whether, legally, this sale satisfied this statute (maybe, maybe not).

It didn’t matter, because I then read the Deed of Trust.

The Deed of Trust adds an extra day to § 35-5-101(b) minimum and requires that the first publication precede the sale by 21 days. This sale clearly didn’t satisfy that requirement.

About 6 bidders attended the sale, but none of them bid. The bank bought the commercial property for nearly $4 Million, and, in the Trustee’s Deed, recited the following:

Did the foreclosing lender double-check the Deed of Trust text? Is this a valid sale? Did good title convey from this sale? Did the failure to follow the terms of the Deed of Trust chill the bidders’ interest? Would this qualify as an “irregular” sale that would prevent collection on any unpaid debt pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-117? Lots of interesting issues flowing from this sale.

I don’t like “interesting issues” on my foreclosures. When I prepare a sale notice, I check and double-check everything. When I’ve got a bunch of foreclosures set, you’ll find pen dots all over my calendar, from all the day-counting.

Foreclosures are complicated, and the failure to get it right can result in a challenge from all different directions. A borrower who doesn’t want to lose the property. A buyer who may not receive clear title. A lender who expects you to follow the process. A bankruptcy trustee who wants to blow it all up.

It’s a tricky process, and there’s too much risk when making an error. None of the goblins who visited my house later that night scared me more than what I saw happen at that foreclosure.

Can a Tennessee foreclosure be continued without written notice? We don’t know (yet).

The Tennessee Supreme Court hasn’t yet issued a ruling in the Terry Case v. Wilmington Trust case, which was argued before it nearly a year ago. It’s an important case for foreclosure attorneys, since the case will decide what impact an (allegedly) defective foreclosure sale has on title: Does the sale convey valid title or not?

That’s the “big picture” issue, but the case also touches on an important mechanical issue: Whether an attorney can rely on the clear text of Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(f) when continuing foreclosure sales for less than 30 days.

In Case, the “boilerplate” text of the deed of trust required all notices by either party to be in writing. But, in the foreclosure statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(f)(3) expressly a creditor to continue a foreclosure upon an oral announcement, if the continuance is for less than 30 days. Because the attorneys for Wilmington only made an oral announcement of the continuance and didn’t mail a notice, the borrower argued, they failed to comply with the “written notice” terms of the Deed of Trust. The Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed with the borrower, and it deemed the sale possibly invalid.

It’s an important question because nearly every Tennessee Deed of Trust will impose a duty on the parties to provide notices in writing. It’s a standard provision, designed to make sure that oral statements don’t amend, waive, or release the rights held by either party under the loan.

In fact, I’m preparing a foreclosure today, and the final provisions of deed of trust I’m foreclosing on has a “Notices” paragraph that says: “Any notice required to be given under this Deed of Trust, including without limitation any notice of default and any notice of sale shall be given in writing, and shall be effective when actually delivered, when actually received by telefacsimile (unless otherwise required by law), when deposited with a nationally recognized overnight courier, or, if mailed, when deposited in the United States mail. as first class, certified or registered mail postage prepaid, directed to the addresses shown near the beginning of this Deed of Trust.”

With the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision looming, Tennessee foreclosure lawyers don’t have the clarity on how to reconcile these different directives.

But, having said that, until the Supreme Court decides, a smart foreclosure attorney will-as I’ve recommended in the past–always comply with the most onerous of all of the requirements, no matter if they are in the deed of trust, a loan agreement, or the foreclosure statutes.

One of the scary things about a non-judicial foreclosure in Tennessee is that it’s all “paperwork,” and there’s no judge involved…until a party challenges the process. You don’t know you’ve messed something up until long after the fact. Foreclosures are careful, deliberate work, and not for the faint of heart. When in doubt over the requirements, I follow them all.

Foreclosures Are Back! (And what this means for Nashville and Bankruptcy Lawyers)

Maybe it’s a harbinger of a worsening economy, the lack of new commercial lending, high interest rates scaring buyers away, or just that secured lenders are sick of being patient, but Nashville is seeing more commercial foreclosures lately.

Obviously, the pending foreclosure of Plaza Mariachi earlier this month made top headlines, but the increase of foreclosure sale notices in the local newspapers suggest that more lenders are taking that final step.

In full transparency, I wrote we’d see an increase foreclosures back in 2022, and I was generally wrong.

Right now, things seem different. Borrowers don’t have access to the same borrowed funds they had over the past 2-3 years. The exuberant “new money” buyers pouring into the market seem to have slowed down. Both the lenders and borrowers can see the “bottom of the river” regarding cash flow and business income.

As much as we’ve been kicking the can down the road on various deals, we keep ending up at the same place, with foreclosure the only remaining exit strategy.

Next week, I have 5 commercial foreclosures set over the course of two days; the week after that, I have 2.

The next storm cloud on the horizon will be whether Nashville has enough bankruptcy lawyers who can service the needs of a city the size of Nashville.

As that post shows, I’ve been wrong for years about the pending explosion in new bankruptcy cases (it’s largely never happened), so maybe I’m wrong about the lack of bankruptcy attorneys.

I don’t think I am. Faced with a pending foreclosure, Plaza Mariachi filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy, but the lead debtor’s attorney is a firm out of Phoenix, Arizona.

If you are a new lawyer, looking for a viable practice area, I’ll repeat the advice I gave in July 2020: Learn Bankruptcy.

Tennessee’s New Squatter Law Solves a Problem We Didn’t Have, and Maybe Creates a New One

Sometimes, when the Tennessee Legislature tries to solve a problem, they inadvertently create one or two other problems.

They might have done that with the “squatters” statute that took effect on July 1, 2024.

In common parlance, a “squatter” is a person who takes possession of property without any rightful claim. In my mind’s eye, I picture a modern-day pirate, moving into your home and declaring “This is MY house now!”

In my 25 years of eviction and property litigation, I’ve actually never dealt with a squatter. I’ve certainly never perceived it to be a problem that justified special legislative attention.

Effective July 1, 2024, we now have Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-135, titled “Limited alternative remedy to remove unauthorized persons from residential real property.” This statute is added to the end of Title 29, Chapter 18, which are the eviction and detainer statutes.

This new statute creates a process by which a property owner can, by filling out a checklist form, direct the Sheriff to remove an “unauthorized person” from the property, without a court proceeding.

By its clear text, “a property owner…may request from the sheriff of the county in which the property is located the immediate removal of any person unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling pursuant to this section if…[a]n unauthorized person has unlawfully entered and remains on the property owner’s [residential] property” and “[t]he unauthorized person is not a current or former tenant…” (this is heavily paraphrased, so be sure to look at subpart (d) in full).

The word “squatter” isn’t in this statute. Instead, the statute deals with “any person unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling” who “has unlawfully entered and remains or continues to reside” on the property and who “is not a current or former tenant…” and “is not an immediate family member of the property owner.”

That’s a pretty broad definition, and it seems to include persons not routinely labelled “squatters.” For instance, wouldn’t a foreclosed homeowner be subject to this statute? They are no longer the “owner,” they aren’t a “current or former tenant,” and if they stay at the property after the foreclosure deed is recorded, the possession is “unlawful.”

In my experience, “squatters” simply haven’t been a bane to Tennessee property owners’ existence. I’m not saying it never happens (and I’m sure that all it takes is one years’ long fight with a squatter to change my mind), but it seems like the existing statutes provide a good remedy, and, at best, this statute puts an awkward amount of judicial discretion into the hands of the local sheriff (who probably would rather all this be decided by a judge).

The Graceland Foreclosure shows the risks of Tennessee’s non-judicial foreclosure process.

I was born in Memphis and, of course, I’m an Elvis fan.

I was shocked to see–on the national news–that Graceland was facing foreclosure. A few days later, it all just…went away and explained as a hoax. I was surprised, but not totally surprised by these strange turn of events. It rarely happens, but foreclosures in Tennessee are ripe for exploitation by bad actors.

Here’s why: Tennessee is a non-judicial foreclosure state, and courts are rarely involved in the process.

At its most simple, Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101 requires a lender to: (1) publish a notice of the sale 3 times in a local newspaper; and (2) send a copy of the notice to the property owner by certified mail. With just a bit of paperwork, voilà, you can sell somebody’s property.

It’s a cost efficient process for legitimate lenders, but it can be exploited by fraudsters and and paper terrorists, who present bogus claims and hope that their efforts will be ignored or not challenged.

Once a foreclosure is started, there are limited ways for a property owner to stop it, short of filing bankruptcy or filing a lawsuit to obtain an injunction pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-23-201 (which is as complicated as it sounds–Graceland’s lawyers filed a 61 document to stop this sale).

graceland-complaint-for-declaratory-judgement-and-injuctive-relief Download

When I saw the news about Graceland’s foreclosure, I immediately looked up the Notice of Foreclosure Sale published by Naussany Investments and Private Lending LLC, and noticed red flags. The Deed of Trust had been not been recorded; the lender didn’t have an attorney; and the Notice of Sale lacked the level of detail a typical lender foreclosing on a historic, world-famous property would include.

In short, it all just seemed weird. In reality, it ended up being ten times weirder. It was all a scam, based on fraudulent documents, with a Nigerian based email scammer publicly claiming credit.

As bizarre as all this was, here’s the scary part: This could happen to anybody in a non-judicial foreclosure state. Here, the fraudsters were simply too ambitious, picking a famous property owned by a deep-pocketed and litigious owner.

What about properties by people who don’t understand the process, don’t read the newspaper and/or sign for certified mail, don’t have access to lawyers, or don’t have the money to fight? There are no official safeguards in the system to protect homeowners.

The newspaper doesn’t question the validity of the lender’s claims in submitted advertisements. The mailman doesn’t either. Once the sale is over, the local Register of Deeds just checks for valid notary stamps and payment of the transfer taxes. In some cases, by the time the owner discovers the fraud, there’s already a new deed recorded.

In 2016, I wrote an article for the Nashville Bar Journal titled, “Is your Potential Client a Nigerian King?” As part of that, I learned something wild about the email scammers’ unique business model: They expect to fail 99% of the time. They aren’t bothered by that fail rate, though, because they know that the upside to a single victory justifies all the work.

Sure, these scammers failed to foreclose on Graceland, but how many other times have they succeeded? And how many more times are they going to try?

Law Firms: To avoid Malpractice Claims, Remember that Tennessee Judgments Expire in Ten Years

Tennessee judgments expire after ten years.

As a creditor lawyer, one of my greatest fears is that one of the many judgments that I’ve taken over the past 10 years is set to expire and I have forgotten about it.

It is so easy to renew judgments under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 69.04, but it’s also easy to forget about those old files. If a law firm forgets, it could get sued for malpractice. It’s a big deal.

Earlier this week, the Tennessee Court of Appeals touched on this issue. See John Doe Corp. v. Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley, P.C., E2023-00236-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2024).

In the case, after the 10 year period expired on an old judgment, the judgment creditor client sued its former lawyers, alleging that the law firm “had failed to inform Plaintiff that the judgment would expire after ten years or that it needed to seek to extend the judgment prior to its expiration.”

The trial court dismissed the claims against the law firm, because the client failed to have filed the lawsuit within the one-year attorney malpractice statute of limitations. The opinion doesn’t really focus on the renewal issue; the real analysis is on issues of recusal and the different standards under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 and 60.02.

But, back to creditor rights. Is this is victory for the law firm? Not really, because lawyers don’t like being sued for malpractice in the first place.

Since starting my firm nearly 4 years ago, I’ve opened 639 new cases. Before that, I handled a similarly busy caseload at my old firm. In the past 10 years, I’ve taken 100s of judgments.

It would be a cold comfort to me to know that, if my client sues me for malpractice, I could possibly defend the case on a technicality.

Having said that, how can lawyers mitigate that risk? The answer is in a Court of Appeals decision I wrote about in 2019. There, the malpractice claims turned on whether the law firm warned the client, at any point, that the judgment needed to be renewed in ten years. Because the law firm had previously warned the client about the 10 year expiration, the client had knowledge of the possible malpractice claims that accrued at the time of non-renewal (and not a later date).

Look at the text of the John Doe case: the client alleged that the law firm “had failed to inform Plaintiff that the judgment would expire after ten years or that it needed to seek to extend the judgment prior to its expiration.”

If you’re like me, a busy lawyer with many judgments, remember my advice from 2019: “A good practice is to make sure that the client understands that it has a responsibility in ten years to notify you that it wants you to take this action.”

In a perfect world, my advice is to calendar judgments and simply avoid this issue altogether.

A separate safeguard could be, in that initial congratulatory email, sending a copy of the judgment to the client, to always include text that clearly discusses the validity and expiration of the Judgment in terms that the client can understand.

341 Recaps: Recording Judgments, Getting the Checks Right, and the very small advantage of Small Law

The Race is On. On Friday, I wrote about the Chancery Court opinion that “blesses” the common practice of recording your judgments as a lien, even though the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.01 “30 day stay” was still in effect.

I’ve heard from a number of lawyers that it’s what they’ve always done, but, nevertheless, it’s nice to have a bit of judicial reassurance.

Back in September 2023, immediately after a trial in Sumner County, I was racing to get the new judgment recorded on land that the judgment debtor had under contract for sale.

As soon as the Judge signed my order, I asked to make a certified copy. Cautiously, because I’ve had judges and court clerks admonish me in the past for even asking for a certified copy of a brand new judgment.

In my case, I had no time to spare.

My Register of Deeds visit was where the real fun started. Within minutes of being handed my certified copy, I was at the Register of Deeds’ front counter.

While I was sitting in the Register’s waiting area, I overheard them discussing a problem they had to deal with.

A Big Law Firm had mailed in a document for recording for the third time, and, once again, the “payee” name on the check was wrong. I don’t know what was written on the check, but it did not say “Sumner County Register of Deeds” (or, I assume, anything close to that).

Twice already, the Register of Deeds had rejected the filing and mailed it back.

As I was sitting there, they were discussing what to do about this third time.

How on Earth does this happen three times? As it turns out, the year before, this AmLaw 200 Big Law Firm had purchased (or, as the marketing people say, “combined with”) a local law firm and checks were no longer written in Nashville or anywhere in Tennessee.

Instead, the checks were written 600 miles away by someone who has probably never heard of “Sumner County” or a “Register of Deeds Office,” and who probably has never met the lawyer (or client) who desperately wanted whatever was being rejected to be recorded.

I have no idea if the third recording got accepted that day, or if the Clerks ever just called the Big Firm to sort it out. I got my recorded judgment lien on the property and left; the rest was not my problem.

So what’s the point of the story? To be clear, I was very amused by it all.

Sometimes, when I am writing my own checks or driving to record my own documents, I miss the old law firm days when I had a person who did all that for me. But, I’m also a control freak who takes his job very seriously, and I would have lost my mind if I had lost weeks trying to record something that kept getting rejected.

Most articles about law firm acquisitions /combinations have the narrative that “bigger is better,” and usually mention “broader reach,” “expanded networks” and “new markets.”

Sitting there that day, with sweaty palms, watching the clock, hoping to get my document recorded before the land could be sold…I was glad to be the guy writing my own checks.

The race is on: Davidson County Chancery answers a long-standing question regarding judgment liens

We’re one step closer to answering one of Tennessee collection law’s greatest mysteries: Can a judgment creditor record a copy of its judgment as soon as it is signed by the Judge, or must the creditor wait 30 days?

The question arises under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.01, which says that “…no execution shall issue upon a judgment, nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of 30 days after its entry…”

The exact issue is this: Is recording a certified copy of a judgment an “execution”? I’ve been asked that for years, but never quite knew the answer.

For starters, what’s the statutory authority for recording a judgment lien? I look at Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69, which is titled “Execution on Judgments,” and includes all the different ways you can “execute” on judgments (garnishments, levies, sheriff’s sales, liens). This list includes Tenn. R. Civ. P. 69.07(2), “Execution on Realty,” which provides the exact process to record a judgment lien against the judgment debtor’s realty.

And let’s be honest; why would you record a judgment in the first place? Under Tennessee law, the recording of a judgment with the register’s office creates a lien on real property, meaning that the debtor can’t sell, refinance, or transfer the property without dealing with the judgment. It’s a pretty powerful tool to get paid. That’s why you’d record it, and as fast as possible.

If the point is to get paid–and as soon as possible–that looks a lot like enforcement, right? But is that “execution”? Should we also throw around terms like “collection” or “attachment” too?

It’s been a mess because the statutes and rules all seem to use these different terms interchangeably, except when they aren’t interchangeable.

Faced with this exact issue, the Davidson County Chancery Court had to make sense of these competing terms and concepts. In an Order from February 2, 2024, the Court found the mere act of recording a judgment during the Rule 62.01 stay period “was not premature ….because the filing of judgment lien is not an act of enforcement.”

In doing so, the Court referenced the pleadings filed in the matter, which drew reasoning from Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-5-101(b)(1) and the competing concepts of “final” judgments found in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54 and 62.01. Further, given the Court’s brief, but specific, factual finding, the Court seems to agree with the opposing brief’s distinction between the acts of recording a lien versus enforcing a lien, arguing that only the latter would violate Rule 62.01. The full Order is attached below.

2024-02-02-order-on-motion-to-void-lien Download

It’s an important issue that has long vexed creditor rights lawyers, debtor’s counsel, and even court clerks. I’ve had court clerks only begrudgingly provide me with a certified copy of a judgment on the day of entry (and reminding me that I “can’t do anything with it for 30 days”).

This Order and the related reasoning may provide a roadmap for future arguments on this issue, which comes up far more frequently than you’d think.

I watched these trial court proceedings pretty closely, and I’m glad to see a creditor-friendly result. The underlying initial pleadings are also attached below.

2024-02-02-original-motion-to-void-lien Download

2024-02-02-response-in-opposition-to-motion-to-void-lien Download

Can a Sheriff’s Execution Sale of Real Property be Continued? (Not Without Court Order or Express Statutory Authority)

A few months ago, I got an unexpected call from a local Sheriff’s Office, late on a Friday afternoon. (Hardly ever always a good thing.)

This Sheriff and I had done a real property “sheriff’s sale” a few years ago that was very successful, and he had one scheduled for Monday that he needed my help on.

“Can a Sheriff’s Execution Sale of Real Property be Continued?” he asked.

The attorneys for the creditor and the judgment debtor were trying to work out a deal, but they were running out of time, but the Sheriff didn’t think he could give them more time.

I wasn’t sure either, so I went with my default answer: “It depends. Let’s talk this out.”

In the end, my advice was: “Under existing Tennessee execution law, he couldn’t: He had to proceed, or the judgment creditor had to call it off. There was no in between.”

It reminded me of foreclosures, before the Tennessee passed Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(f) in 2011.

Back then, unless the text of a deed of trust expressly authorized a foreclosure postponement, trustees weren’t sure if they could continue a sale. Some trustees included language in their sale notices allowing continuances, making it seem like it was no big deal (but if you if you pressed them on the authority to postpone a sale, they’d usually admit that there was none).

Back then, if a deed of trust was silent on continuance, most prudent lenders tended to proceed with a sale, regardless of whether the parties were negotiating potential resolutions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-101(f) was enacted to avoid those harsh results and help parties who were trying, in good faith, to resolve disputes and save their homes. It gave them some relief to work out a deal.

So, back to our Sheriff’s Sale. The analogy to foreclosures is apt, because the sheriff’s sale statutes track the foreclosure statutes. If you at Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-5-101, et. seq.–it’s nearly the exact same text. In short, a Sheriff’s Sale is, basically, the same thing as a foreclosure sale, but done by the sheriff.

But, for this blog post, I’ll point out a big difference: There’s no § 26-5-101 “(f)” — the part about the continuances. It’s the same text, except for that section.

Uh oh.

And, of course, there’s never going to be any sort of contract to fall back on, because there’s hardly ever going to be any sort of contract between a judgment creditor and judgment debtor providing any sale terms (as a deed of trust would between a borrower and lender).

Separately, there’s nothing in any other Tennessee statutes–talking about execution, sheriff sales, Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69 or elsewhere–about continuances.

Finally, in talking to the Sheriff, I asked him–in a last ditch effort to see if I could help the parties on his sale get some more time to reach a resolution–whether their case’s Sale Order or Notice of Sheriff’s Sale said anything about ability to continue or postpone the sale? There was nothing at all they could point to.

In a perfect world, we’d have a statute that allows continuances in sheriff’s sales. In a less perfect world, the Court’s Sale Order would allow a continuance. In an even less perfect situation, we’d have a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale that would allow a continuance.

Their sale didn’t have any of that.

Don’t Worry About Party Fowl: Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Isn’t Always a Bad Thing

Bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean that a business is shutting down.

You wouldn’t think that, though, based on the reactions online to the news that Party Fowl, a local “Nashville Hot Chicken” restaurant, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.

Some of it can be chalked up to schadenfreude: The restaurant was the site of a fairly salacious political scandal involving some of Tennessee’s least likeable politicians in recent memory. Whether it’s echoes of that scandal or its location in the party-centric Gulch, Party Fowl tends to get a bad rap from locals.

The reactions also reveal common misconceptions about how Chapter 11 works. Sure, if a company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, something has gone terribly wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the company.

The goal in Chapter 11 is rarely to simply shut down, but, instead, it’s to reorganize and stay in business. This generally involves freezing payments to creditors (unless it’s post-bankruptcy vendor payments), restructuring the company’s debts (i.e. extending the payment terms and, sometimes, paying only a fraction of the amounts owed), rejecting leases (i.e. undoing bad business decisions), and, generally, cut operations and expenses going forward (i.e. downsizing).

At the end of this process, a chapter 11 debtor will propose a plan of reorganization (based on a realistic budget it can handle) to keep its business alive and pay creditors over time.

Most companies continue operations after filing Chapter 11, and the customers will never notice any difference. Party Fowl filed bankruptcy nearly ten days ago, but they’ve been selling hot chicken continuously over the past two weeks.

Party Fowl appears to have some good reasons for filing. Based on their Company Profile (copy below), the debtor told the Bankruptcy Court that COVID was a big disruption with awful timing: They started a bold expansion in March 2020, and those new locations have struggled and drained resources, impaired cash flow, and led them to take out some fairly onerous and high interest merchant lender loans to bridge the gap. The bankruptcy filing allows the debtor stop paying those sky-high rate loans and use the income to right-size the business.

This is a Creditors Rights blog, written by a creditor rights lawyer, so please don’t think I’m going soft here. Based on the pretty extreme “Party Fowl, we hardly knew thee” reactions, I thought a little bit of background could be useful.

And, don’t worry, I’ve got lots of criticisms about the chapter 11 process, but I’ll save those for a later post. (Just wait until I tell you the story about the mega-bankruptcy case that paid the lawyers $100s of millions of dollars in legal fees and costs over 5 years, and the check my client received last month for 1.04% of his claim…)

docket-x-js-concepts-summary-of-background-filing Download