February 24–March 1, 2024
- Ex-Husband who’s big mad about losing three Subway franchises in the divorce files a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the judgment, claiming that Ex-Wife committed fraud in her valuation of the franchises. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Lettuce count the ways you lose, beginning with the facts that Ex-Husband “failed to present clear and convincing proof that Wife withheld evidence, offered perjured testimony, or misrepresented anything,” and even if she did, Ex-Husband made no showing that he was prevented from presenting his case.
- Man on sex offender registry appeals denial of Tennessee Bureau of Investigation request to terminate his registration requirements. Because he first filed his notice of appeal in the trial court instead of filing it with the appellate court clerk and then mailed the notice of appeal to the wrong address, his notice is filed two months late. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Both of those mistakes rendered the earlier attempts to appeal a nullity, and neither one tolled the deadline to appeal, so you register an L.
- Defendant signs a promissory note and borrows half a million dollars secured against his home. Plaintiff, who lent Defendant the money, remarkably lends Defendant another $400,000.00 afterward, which included $50,000.00 of accrued interest. Defendant ultimately makes no payments, so Plaintiff forecloses on the home. Defendant then conveys his home (which is soaked in debt) to Plaintiff, who pays off the debt, flips the home for a tidy profit, but then sues for the balance of the loan and interest, which is substantial because the interest is so heavy. Some two years after answering, Defendant moves to amend his answer to add the defenses of usury, misrepresentation, and fraud, but he never sets the motion for hearing. Tennessee Court of Appeals: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend, since it would have required reopening discovery, and there were no non-waived errors below, so Defendant is on the hook for another $843,011.47 after losing his house.
- Client enters into contingency fee agreement with Law Firm that provides for payment of 40% of Client’s “recovery.” After $1,275,000 sale of Client’s real estate, Law Firm claims it’s entitled to a $510,000.00 fee. Client balks, refuses payment, and hires New Attorney, who is a bankruptcy specialist. New Attorney sees a lane based on the ambiguous meaning of the word “recovery,” tries to settle for a lot less, and then files bankruptcy on behalf of Client after Law Firm won’t settle. Law Firm later settles with Client for $350,000.00 in the bankruptcy proceeding and signs a broad release. Law Firm then turns around and sues New Attorney for the $160,000.00 difference it claims it was due. Tennessee Court of Appeals: There is zero evidence in the record that New Attorney tortiously interfered with a business relationship or induced any breach of contract, so he wins even before we get to a bunch of other reasons he wins.
- Tennessee Court of Appeals: In an opinion that will give you 1L Property PTSD, we hold that “because Respondent held a right of survivorship in the Property, Respondent became sole owner of the Property upon the death of Decedent.”
- Pro se litigant seeks recusal, gets denied, then pursues an accelerated interlocutory appeal. Litigant’s affidavit in support of her recusal motion states: “This motion is not presented for ‘any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation’ and ‘under the penalty of perjury on personal knowledge and by other appropriate materials.’” Tennessee Court of Appeals: “the grammatical construction of this sentence indicates that the Recusal Motion” was not filed under penalty of perjury, and we construe the requirements of Rule 10B strictly, so the motion is denied as unsupported.
- Homeowners, insurance provider, and service provider fight over claims resulting from water damage. Settlement negotiations appear to result in a settlement agreement, but Homeowners stop short of signing it. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Homeowners’ only issue on appeal (regarding “whether a condition subsequent made the agreement unenforceable”) is waived because it wasn’t presented below, and we affirm the trial court’s finding that a settlement was reached based on specific and explicit email correspondence to that effect between the Parties’ counsel.
