|
Posted on Oct 26 2014 7:18PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Many of you who practice law in Tennessee
have read and used books by attorney John Day as a resource in your law practice. These books include Day on Torts:
Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law and Tennessee Law of Comparative Fault. I have used both of these books on numerous
occasions. The good news is John Day now
has a new book called, “Tennessee Law
of Civil Trial.” This can be added to
your list of helpful Tennessee specific law books written by attorney John
Day. He sent me a copy and requested I
write a review and it has been a good experience.
The main purpose of this book is to clearly outline
the “Law of Civil Trial” in Tennessee in a concise helpful way. John Day points out, as many of us have come to
realize, that there are significantly less trials in Tennessee than there were
in the past (I have
blogged about this issue previously).
As a result, less and less attorneys have significant civil trial
experience and therefore he felt a resource would be helpful for those
attorneys who still occasionally go to trial but may not have the trial experience
a lot of attorneys had in the past. I
think this is the primary value of this book.
The secondary value is to provide a helpful reference on specific topics
for more experienced attorneys who have tried many cases. This group of attorneys can still benefit
from this book because it provides a refresher course on certain topics. I will be placing this book in my firm’s
library because it is a resource that can be taken to trial or reviewed prior
to trial to remind you of certain trial concepts that we may not use on a
day-to-day basis.
This book discusses many different areas and
I think it is helpful for you to know the topics so you can better understand
the scope of this book. This book
provides chapters on the following topics:
1. Scheduling orders
2. Final Pretrial Conferences
3. Motions in
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on Oct 19 2014 4:39PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
The Tennessee Court of Appeals’ case of Gary
Atchley v. Tennessee Credit, LLC, No. M2013-00234-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 4629042
(Tenn. Ct. App. 2014), discussed the doctrine of “after-acquired-title”
under Tennessee law. This case is
relatively straight forward. On
September 22, 2009, the plaintiff purchased from Tennessee Credit, LLC a piece
of real property for $18,000.00. At that
time he signed and presented the $18,000.00 check to Tennessee Credit,
LLC. The problem was, Tennessee Credit,
LLC did not actually own the property at the time of the sale. Tennessee Credit, LLC did have the right to foreclose
on the property at the time of the sale but they had not done this yet, so they
did not actually own the property. It
was not until December 4, 2009 that Tennessee Credit, LLC actually owned the
property.
After Tennessee Credit, LLC obtained
title, the purchaser desired to rescind the transaction and demanded a refund
of the $18,000.00 paid to Tennessee Credit, LLC. This Tennessee Court of Appeals’ decision ultimately
agreed that this contract could be rescinded and the $18,000.00 should be
refunded to the purchaser. The Trial
Court said it best, “you can’t sell property you don’t own . . .”. Atchley at
2. The Appellate Court reviewed
some very old Tennessee decisions from the early 1900’s and 1800’s in order to
decide this case. There has not been
case law on the “after-acquired-title” doctrine at issue in this case in the last
80 years. Tennessee Credit, LLC
attempted to argue the principal of “after-acquired-title” which would allow
them to enforce the transaction because they acquired the title after the
transaction. The Tennessee Court of
Appeals rejected this argument and stated as follows:
When Mr. Dunn
advertised Ms. Roller's property for sale and attempted to sell the property to
Mr. Atchley,
he knew Tennessee Credit did not have title to the
property. Like the executor in Woods,
Mr. Dunn's representation that he had a right to sell Ms. Roller's property was
a “species of fraud.” Therefore, in keeping with the principles announced in Woods, we do not
believe Mr. Atchley
should be compelled to take the after-acquired-title from Tennessee C...
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on Oct 5 2014 6:04PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
The recent Tennessee Court of Appeals’
decision of Advantage Windows,
Inc. v. Oscar Zacarias, No. E2014-00122-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 4403106 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 2014)
discussed the validity of a signed contract when the individual who signed the
contract does not understand English. In
the Zacarias case, an
agreement was signed between a homeowner and the plaintiff construction company
to perform certain work on the residence.
The homeowner never paid for the work.
Therefore, the construction company sued the homeowner for breach of
contract. The homeowner filed a counter-claim
asserting he only had a limited understanding of English and that the alleged
contract was actually explained to him as an “estimate”. The Trial Court found that because the preponderance
of “evidence established that Mr. Zacarias did
not know or understand the English language, [t]here was no meeting of the
minds and no way for Mr. Zacarias to form a
binding contract with Advantage Windows.” Advantage Windows
at 2.
This case was appealed to the Tennessee
Court of Appeals.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that
in order to have a binding contract, the “contract must result from a meeting
of the minds of the parties in mutual assent to the terms, must be based upon a
sufficient consideration, free from fraud or undue influence, not against
public policy and sufficiently definite to be enforced.” Advantage Windows
at 3. The Court then noted that T.C.A. §
47-50-112(a)
provides a statutory presumption that a signed written agreement contains the
intentions of the parties and that the individual who signed the agreement
agreed to be bound by those terms. T.C.A. §
47-50-112(a)
provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) All contracts,
including, but not limited to, notes, security agreements, deeds of trust, and
installment sales contracts, in writing and...
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|