Davidson County Circuit Court Judges Enter Order to Review Writs of Restitution in Detainer Appeals

I posted a few years ago that a losing defendant in a detainer action isn’t required to post the “possessory” bond provided at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130(b)(2) in order to have a valid appeal.

While courts were split for years on this issue, the Tennessee Supreme Court’s December 2013 decision in Johnson v. Hopkins answered this question for good.  In short, the defendant who fails to post the possessory bond still has a valid appeal, but the defendant has no protection from a Writ of Restitution while the appeal is pending.

In Davidson County Circuit Court, if a general sessions detainer judgment was appealed without that bond, the Court Clerk’s website actually had a form that would allow the landlord to immediately issue a Writ, no matter if the appeal was still under consideration.

And, as you might suspect, that’s a big deal, since what’s the point of fighting the landlord’s eviction if you’re not going to stay in the premises? My guess is that it wasn’t a matter of strategy, but, instead, an issue of ignorance by the litigants about how detainer appeals work.

I also know, from my experience, that it’s a quite a surprise when an appealing defendant discovers this mistake…which used to happen when the Sheriff showed up to execute on the Writ with movers in tow.

Potentially in response to this, the Judges of the Circuit Court recently entered an Order entered on February 24, 2017 that, for any Writ of Restitution filed with the Clerk while an appeal is pending, the Clerk must set a review hearing on the Writ before issuance of the Writ.

This is an interesting practice, that’s not based on the statutes or rules of procedure. I’d bet it’s based on the Judges getting sick of dealing with the frantic motions to quash filed after the Sheriff shows up at somebody’s door. All in all, it’s a good, practical procedure.

 

 

 

Tennessee Detainer Actions: Not Just for Tenants and Landlords

What if you own real property, but someone else has possession of the property, and you want them gone? You evict them. But, as you’ll see under Tennessee statutes, they don’t call it an “eviction” lawsuit; they call it a “detainer” lawsuit.

The statute in Tennessee is Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-104, titled “Unlawful Detainer.” That statute provides:

Unlawful detainer is where the defendant enters by contract, either as tenant or as assignee of a tenant, or as personal representative of a tenant, or as subtenant, or by collusion with a tenant, and, in either case, willfully and without force, holds over the possession from the landlord, or the assignee of the remainder or reversion.”

These detainer actions are generally brought in general sessions court, where, as I’ve noted before, you can exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional limit. Also, even though general sessions appeals are very easy on most matters, they are complicated and expensive in general sessions court.

So, if you’re a landlord, you’re probably reading that statute and thinking it’s exactly what you need, right? But, what about if you’ve purchased the property, either by a typical sale or a foreclosure? In that case, you’re not a landlord, and the defendant isn’t entering by contract (i.e. lease). Does a different statute apply?

No, said the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Danny O. Daniels, W2015-00999-COA-R3-CV (Dec. 21, 2015).  There, the Court noted that the Deed of Trust will create “a landlord/tenant relationship … between the foreclosure sale purchaser and the mortgagor in possession of the property,” and, as a result, “constructive possession is conferred on the foreclosure sale purchaser upon the passing of title; that constructive possession provides the basis for maintaining the unlawful detainer.”

In such a case, a plaintiff must prove: (1) its constructive possession of the property (i.e. ownership of the property); and (2) its loss of possession by the other party’s act of unlawful detainer.

In short, the detainer statutes in Tennessee aren’t well crafted. Sometimes they reference landlords and tenants; sometimes they don’t. Courts have a tendency to construe statutes as written and to assume that the legislature means what it says when it uses specific words. That’s bad news for the foreclosure sale purchaser, who isn’t a landlord and who isn’t dealing with a tenant.

Here, however, it’s clear that the legislature should have proofread the statutes a few more times. Fortunately, Tennessee courts have applied the statutes in a broader sense.

 

There’s a 15 Day Limit to Continuances in Tennessee Detainer Actions

Landlording is a hard business. If you don’t think so, wait until the first time you have to sue your tenant to evict them.

In Tennessee, the process is done by a “detainer” warrant, and it’s a full blown court proceeding, which is generally done in General Sessions Court.

In these proceedings, the landlord wants the proceeding resolved as soon as possible, while the tenant wants to stretch out the proceeding as long as possible. Who doesn’t like to live rent free, right?

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-118 provides some protection for landlords. That statute allows the judge to continue a matter, but only to a time not exceeding 15 days.

The only exception the statute provides that would allow for a longer period of time is: (1) if the parties agree to a longer time; (2) the 15 days ends at a time when there’s no court; or (3) the party asking for the continuance pays “the costs.” (Here, the costs means they pay, at the time of the request, the rent due for that period, plus any other amounts due/incurred during that period.)

So, the tenant might get a delay–note that the statute isn’t absolute, it says “may”–but there’s an absolute limit to the delay. No Tennessee case–published or unpublished–provides any exception that allows for a longer continuance to this statute.