As lawyers, the business model is fairly simple: We sell our time, multiplied by our hourly rates.
This creates a huge disconnect between clients and lawyers. All clients want their matters resolved in their favor, but also quickly, smartly, and cost-efficiently (that’s a nice way to say for as little legal fees as possible). On the other hand, the lawyer-industrial-complex wants lawyers to ponder, research, litigate, bill, examine, depose, etc. (i.e. for as many billable hours as possible).
First off, run away from lawyers like that.
Second, if you’re a lawyer and want clients to be happy, you should read this new Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion, which discusses the concept of res judicata. That’s a doctrine that allows parties to avoid unnecessary, duplication litigation, when the issues have already been decided by a court.
The facts aren’t that important, so I’ll just focus on the legal discussion. The Court wrote: Continue reading “New Court of Appeals Opinion provides good statement of doctrine of Res Judicata”
Across the country, lenders are fighting claims from borrowers that the lender’s foreclosure on real property was defective. In response, courts will sometimes entertain an examination of the specifics of the foreclosure. Regardless of the outcome, the lender is invariably faced with delay in obtaining a deficiency judgment or the costs of litigating these issues.
On January 31, 2011, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that such claims by a borrower will not be considered, where the lender has filed a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer warrant in General Sessions Court and obtained an eviction judgment. If the homeowner does not raise the defective foreclosure in the General Sessions Court, then the decision is “res judicata” on any subsequent action.
It’s a a quick and cheap way to clear title on property. Also, you serve the detainer warrant by nailing it to the door of the property — no chasing the elusive occupants around the world trying to get service.
Cite: Robert E. Davis, et. al, v. Crawford L. Williams, et. al, No. E2010-01139-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Apps. Jan. 31, 2011).